United States v. Robinson , 174 F. App'x 773 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7647
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANK LEON ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District
Judge. (CR-98-523; CA-01-2881)
Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank Leon Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Frank Leon Robinson seeks to appeal a district court
order denying as a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). An appeal may
not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 Robinson has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
- 2 -
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
*
To the extent that Robinson may be seeking authorization
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second and successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion based upon United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2005); and
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we deny authorization.
- 3 -