Case ID: f-appx_242/html/0949-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Steven Z. RAST, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 06-6923.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 7, 2007.
    Decided: Sept. 24, 2007.
    Steven Z. Rast, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Steven Z. Rast seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part 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); United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652 (4th Cir.2007). 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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 deny Rast’s motions for appointment of counsel, for resentencing, for access to legal materials and transcripts, and to vacate conviction and remand to the district court. 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.