Case Name: Steven Z. RAST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-26
Citations: 380 F. App'x 304
Docket Number: No. 09-6496
Parties: Steven Z. RAST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 380
Pages: 304–305

Head Matter:
Steven Z. RAST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-6496.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 11, 2010.
Decided: May 26, 2010.
Steven Z. Rast, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying his motion for reconsideration of the order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appeal- able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 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 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.
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.