US v. Steven Nadroski, No. 10-6815 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6815 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN NADROSKI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00027-RAJ-JEB-2) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 21, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Nadroski, Assistant United Appellee. Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Nadroski seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, A certificate of 369 justice or The order is judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); F.3d 363, appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. issue 2004). absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude that We have Nadroski independently has not reviewed made the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 2 and legal contentions are adequately 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.
