United States v. Eustach , 274 F. App'x 337 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6031
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RONALD EUSTACH,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (4:00-cr-00067-CMC-2; 4:02-cv-04279-CMC-2)
    Submitted:   April 17, 2008                 Decided: April 23, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ronald Eustach, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
    Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald Eustach seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of the denial of
    his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.                    The order is 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 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    Eustach    has   not    made    the    requisite
    showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
    Eustach’s motion to expand the 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6031

Citation Numbers: 274 F. App'x 337

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Michael

Filed Date: 4/23/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024