United States v. Robeson , 194 F. App'x 142 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7718
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JASMINE ROCHELLS ROBESON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-02-140; CA-04-335-3-2MU)
Submitted: June 21, 2006 Decided: August 11, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jasmine Rochells Robeson, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani S. Murray,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jasmine Rochells Robeson, a federal prisoner, appealed
the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000) motion. This court previously granted a certificate of
appealability and issued a limited remand solely for the purpose of
directing the district court to determine whether Robeson’s counsel
failed to file a notice of appeal from the criminal judgment after
being directed to do so. Giving Robeson the benefit of the doubt,
the district court granted relief under United States v. Peak, 992
F.2d 39 (4th Cir. 1993), vacated the criminal judgment and
reinstated the judgment to afford Robeson the opportunity to file
a direct appeal. We note that Robeson’s direct appeal currently is
pending before this court. Because the remaining claims on which
the district court denied § 2255 relief may be raised in the
reinstated direct appeal, we grant Robeson’s motion for a
certificate of appealability, modify the district court’s dismissal
of Robeson’s remaining claims to be without prejudice, and affirm
the dismissal as modified.
Robeson’s motions for appointment of counsel and for
general relief are denied. 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.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
- 2 -