United States v. Robinson

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Robinson, 349 F. App'x 830 (4th Cir. 2009)

United States v. Robinson

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8465

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLOS DEMOND ROBINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:03-cr-00616-HMH-1; 6:08-cv-70114-HMH)

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: November 5, 2009

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darren S. Haley, HALEY & PARKER, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Carlos Demond Robinson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the

constitutional claims by the district court is 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 Robinson has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The

motions for appointment of counsel and to consolidate are

denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished