United States v. Carlos Robinson , 672 F. App'x 330 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7234
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; 6:16-cv-02430-HMH)
Submitted: December 28, 2016 Decided: January 12, 2017
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlos Demond Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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
2
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * We
grant leave to file a supplemental informal brief and 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
* Robinson had the requisite two prior felony convictions
for career offender status. His conviction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) (2012) was a conviction of a controlled substance
offense. See United States v. Robinson, 447 F. App’x 512, 514
(4th Cir. 2011). His South Carolina conviction of strong arm
robbery constitutes a conviction of a crime of violence. See
United States v. Doctor, 842 F.3d 306, 312 (4th Cir. 2016).
3