United States v. Robinson
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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- Unpublished