US v. Charles Izac, No. 08-8375 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8375 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES D. IZAC, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John P. Bailey, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00058-JPB-JES-1; 3:08-cv-00093-JPB) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles D. Izac, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles D. Izac seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues on a his absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a substantial right. jurists of § 2255 (West Supp. appealability. 28 2008) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies constitutional U.S.C.A. certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue 28 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 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 Izac 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.