United States v. Stephen Robinson ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN ROBINSON, a/k/a Lini,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00042-JPB-DJJ-1; 3:11-cv-00104-
JPB-DJJ)
Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Stephen Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge,
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion, and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3