Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07789/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07789-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin A. Rideout
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7789 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/27/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

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

Appeal: 09-7789 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/27/2010 Pg: 2 of 2