United States v. Grasso ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6222
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL JOSEPH GRASSO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:03-cr-00092-DCN-2; 2:05-cv-01115-DCN)
Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 8, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Joseph Grasso, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Joseph Grasso seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district
court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and
that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Grasso has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Morris,
429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) is not retroactively applicable to
cases on collateral review). 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 -