Court Opinion

ID: 8600416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 21:41:37.34776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:10.220705
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Michael Joseph Grasso seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grasso has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir.2005) (holding that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review). 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.