Court Opinion

ID: 1016842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:55:31.197869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:37.170542
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6440

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

RUDOLPH ESTON NESSELRODT,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-02-00001; CA-03-580-7)

Submitted:   July 20, 2005                 Decided:   August 10, 2005

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rudolph Eston Nesselrodt, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick
Gould, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

              Rudolph Eston Nesselrodt seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and denying in part his subsequent motion to alter or amend

judgment.      The orders are 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

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.       See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Nesselrodt has not made the requisite

showing.        Accordingly,    we    deny    Nesselrodt’s   motion   for   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

                                     - 2 -