United States v. Casto

328 F. App'x 174

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8138

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PAUL FREDERICK CASTO,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00041-IMK-JSK-1; 1:07-cv-00135-IMK- JSK)

Submitted: June 15, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Frederick Casto, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Paul Frederick Casto seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2009) motion and the district court’s order denying a

certificate of appealability. These 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 conclude that Casto has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny as

moot Casto’s motion to expedite. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

2 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED