UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7677
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK JAMES KONSAVICH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (5:05-cr-00019-gec-mfu-1; 5:08-cv-80100-gec)
Submitted: December 16, 2009 Decided: January 19, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark James Konsavich, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien,
Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark James Konsavich seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2009) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find
that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district
court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural
ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-
El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th
Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
Konsavich’s arguments on appeal and conclude Konsavich has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2