United States v. Gary Robinson ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6544
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    GARY ROBINSON, a/k/a Gary Robertson, a/k/a Paul Thomas,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (1:02-cr-00253-DKC-1)
    Submitted: September 29, 2020                                     Decided: October 6, 2020
    Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gary Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Gary Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his
    28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Whiteside v. United States, 
    775 F.3d 180
    , 182-83 (4th Cir.
    2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one-year statute of
    limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C.
    § 2255(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
    of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v.
    Thaler, 
    565 U.S. 134
    , 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000)).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not
    made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Robinson’s motion for 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 this court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-6544

Filed Date: 10/6/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/6/2020