Steven Rast v. US, No. 09-6496 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6496 STEVEN Z. RAST, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:02-cr-00948-GRA-1; 7:03-cr-00429-GRA-1; 7:08-cv-70087-GRA) Submitted: February 11, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Z. Rast, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Z. Rast seeks to appeal the district court s order denying denying relief motion. * judge his motion on his 28 reconsideration U.S.C.A. § 2255 of (West the order Supp. 2009) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue for absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a substantial satisfies constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not right. jurists of 28 this by U.S.C. find the of the § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing that by of (2006). demonstrating any district denial assessment court is a A that of debatable the 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 Rast 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 * We note that the caption of the district court s order lists only Case No. 7:03-cr-00429-GRA. However, it is clear that the order also pertains to Case No. 6:02-cr-00948-GRA. 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.