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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

motion. The order

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

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(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