Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06496/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06496-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Z. Rast
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6496

STEVEN Z. RAST,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:02-cr-00948-GRA-1; 7:03-cr-00429-GRA-1; 

7:08-cv-70087-GRA)

Submitted: February 11, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Z. Rast, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-6496 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/26/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Z. Rast seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order 

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

motion.*

 * We note that the caption of the district court’s order 

lists only Case No. 7:03-cr-00429-GRA. However, it is clear 

that the order also pertains to Case No. 6:02-cr-00948-GRA.

 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 Rast 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 

Appeal: 09-6496 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/26/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-6496 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/26/2010 Pg: 3 of 3