The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
04-6440•United States of America v. Rudolph Eston Nesselrodt
04-6440Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 10, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6440
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RUDOLPH ESTON NESSELRODT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-02-00001; CA-03-580-7)
Submitted: July 20, 2005 Decided: August 10, 2005
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rudolph Eston Nesselrodt, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick
Gould, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Rudolph Eston Nesselrodt seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion
and denying in part his subsequent motion to alter or amend
judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue
absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Nesselrodt has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny Nesselrodt’s motion for 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.