United States v. Robinson

307 F. App'x 752

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8085

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID JOSE ROBINSON, a/k/a Crockett,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00065-JPB-JES-1; 3:07-cv-00046- JPB-JES)

Submitted: January 13, 2009 Decided: January 20, 2009

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Jose Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

David Jose Robinson seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 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. 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