United States v. Robinson , 180 F. App'x 433 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7543
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GARY ROBINSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-02-253-WMN; CA-05-133-WMN)
    Submitted:   May 3, 2006                    Decided:   May 15, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gary Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.  Jonathan Mark Mastrangelo,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Gary Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.            The order is
    not   appealable   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 the district
    court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or
    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
    court is likewise debatable.      See 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.         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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-7543

Citation Numbers: 180 F. App'x 433

Judges: Hamilton, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 5/15/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023