United States v. David Robinson , 594 F. App'x 182 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-7734
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID MCDOWELL ROBINSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
    (1:07-cr-00087-RDB-1; 1:14-cv-03425-RDB)
    Submitted:   February 25, 2015            Decided:    March 2, 2015
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David McDowell Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.     Jefferson McClure
    Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    David McDowell Robinson seeks to appeal the district
    court’s    order      denying    relief     on     his       “Motion    for   Vacation      of
    Judgment for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(4),” which the court
    construed as an untimely 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2012) motion.                                   The
    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
    a   certificate        of    appealability.             
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B)
    (2012).     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) (2012).                   When the district court denies
    relief    on    the    merits,    a   prisoner         satisfies       this   standard      by
    demonstrating         that     reasonable        jurists       would     find     that     the
    district       court’s      assessment    of      the    constitutional           claims    is
    debatable      or     wrong.     Slack    v.      McDaniel,       
    529 U.S. 473
    ,    484
    (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003).
    When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
    prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
    ruling    is    debatable,      and   that       the    motion    states      a   debatable
    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                          Slack, 
    529 U.S. at 484-85
    .
    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.
    2
    We   dispense   with   oral   argument   because    the   facts   and   legal
    contentions     are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials     before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-7734

Citation Numbers: 594 F. App'x 182

Filed Date: 3/2/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023