Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07277/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07277-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Craig Frost
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

STEVEN CRAIG FROST,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District

Judge. (1:05-cr-00036-JPJ-1; 7:06-cv-00667-JPJ-1)

Submitted: January 25, 2008 Decided: March 26, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Craig Frost, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Rebecca Bockhorst,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7277 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/26/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Steven Craig Frost seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on 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 Frost has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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: 07-7277 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/26/2008 Pg: 2 of 2