United States v. Rita

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Rita, 366 F. App'x 476 (4th Cir. 2010)

United States v. Rita

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7571

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VICTOR A. RITA, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00105-MR-DCK-1; 3:08-cv-00260-MR)

Submitted: January 29, 2010 Decided: February 22, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor A. Rita, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Victor A. Rita, Jr. seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West

Supp. 2009) motion. 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 Rita 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished