US v. Ronald Rose, No. 08-8152 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8152 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD STUART ROSE, a/k/a Rahking, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00444-RLW-1; 3:07-cv-198) Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 11, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Stuart Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald Stuart Rose seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) 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 prisoner reasonable right. satisfies jurists constitutional 28 this by § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims U.S.C. find the that by demonstrating any district (2006). assessment court is A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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 Rose 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.