United States v. Rideout

375 F. App'x 339

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 27, 2010
• Docket: 09-7789
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7789

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KEVIN A. RIDEOUT, a/k/a JD,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:00-cr-00007-FPS-JES-12)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin A. Rideout, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Kevin A. Rideout seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009)

motion and denying his motion to reconsider. 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 Rideout 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