UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6496
STEVEN Z. RAST,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:02-cr-00948-GRA-1; 7:03-cr-00429-GRA-1;
7:08-cv-70087-GRA)
Submitted: February 11, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Z. Rast, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Z. Rast seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009)
motion. * The order is 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 conclude that Rast 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
*
We note that the caption of the district court’s order
lists only Case No. 7:03-cr-00429-GRA. However, it is clear
that the order also pertains to Case No. 6:02-cr-00948-GRA.
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3