Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07677/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07677-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7677

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MARK JAMES KONSAVICH, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District 

Judge. (5:05-cr-00019-gec-mfu-1; 5:08-cv-80100-gec) 

Submitted: December 16, 2009 Decided: January 19, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Mark James Konsavich, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7677 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/19/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Mark James Konsavich seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. 

The 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. MillerEl 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 

Konsavich’s arguments on appeal and conclude Konsavich 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

Appeal: 09-7677 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/19/2010 Pg: 2 of 2