Court Opinion

ID: 9915595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 21:01:03.757836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:06.536378
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7051      Doc: 8         Filed: 01/04/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7051

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        PAUL CASTO,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00046-TSK-MJA-2; 1:20-
        cv-00045-TSK)

        Submitted: November 28, 2023                                      Decided: January 4, 2024

        Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Paul Casto, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7051      Doc: 8         Filed: 01/04/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Paul Casto seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

        of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Casto’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order

        is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

        28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).      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). When

        the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by

        demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the

        constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017).

        When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate

        both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a

        debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134,

        140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Casto has not made

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

        pending motion, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

        and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        DISMISSED

                                                      2