US v. Scott Rendelman, No. 08-7646 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7646 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SCOTT LEWIS RENDELMAN, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07cr-00331-RWT-1; 8:08-cv-01832-RWT) Submitted: January 15, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and January 22, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott Lewis Rendelman, Appellant Pro Se. James Marton Trusty, Assistant United Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Stacy Dawson Belf, States Attorneys, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Scott court s order premature. or judge Lewis Rendelman denying his issues absent constitutional prisoner U.S.C. to appeal § 2255 the (2000) district motion as The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue 28 seeks a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district of (2000). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of the debatable 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 Rendelman has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a dismiss because the the appeal. facts and We 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.