US v. Panagoitis Skordalos, No. 09-6211 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6211 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PANAGOITIS SKORDALOS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00107-RDB-1; 1:08-cv-01049-RDB) Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 5, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Panagoitis Skordalos, Appellant Pro Se. Traci L. Robinson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Panagoitis Skordalos 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 prisoner right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 this would claims by U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) standard find the by that district (2006). demonstrating any 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 Skordalos has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate Skordalos of appealability, deny appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. motion for 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.