United States v. Ronald Mabine ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7325 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7325
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RONALD LEE MABINE,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:14-cr-00133-HCM-TEM-1;
2:16-cv-00262-HCM)
Submitted: February 16, 2023 Decided: March 24, 2023
Before Timothy M. TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation, Eugene E. SILER, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation, and
Theodore A. MCKEE, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, sitting by designation. 1
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
1
As all members of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit are
recused in this case, a panel of judges from outside the Circuit was appointed by the Chief
Justice for this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 291, 294 (2018).
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7325 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
Ronald Lee Mabine, Appellant Pro Se. Aidan Taft Grano-Mickelsen, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7325 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Lee Mabine seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying reconsideration. His motion alleged
constitutionally ineffective trial counsel. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).
We will not issue a certificate of appealability without “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or
wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140–41 (2012) (citing Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Following a jury trial, Mabine was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and being a felon in possession of
a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e). He now argues his trial
counsel was constitutionally ineffective. He must show not only that counsel was
constitutionally deficient, but that this deficiency prejudiced him. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We “strongly” presume counsel “rendered
adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable
3
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7325 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
professional judgment.” Id. at 690. For the following reasons, Mabine’s counsel was
not constitutionally ineffective, and we deny his request for a certificate of
appealability. 2
First, Mabine asserts trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach an
eyewitness based on her prior inconsistent statements about the color of the robber’s
pants—she originally said they were black but testified at trial that they were grey.
Police found grey sweatpants in the same dumpster where they found Mabine after the
robbery. Counsel deemed this discrepancy immaterial given the witness’s otherwise
consistent testimony and the other evidence in this case. Counsel’s strategic choice at
trial is entitled to deference and does not support an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim.
Second, Mabine contends counsel failed to call a favorable witness, who
supposedly would have testified that Mabine collected scrap metal in the dumpster
behind the robbery location, which explains why police found him there immediately
after the robbery. But that testimony would not have explained why Mabine was found
with a firearm, cash from the robbery, and the robber’s clothing, and was quickly
identified as the robber by an eyewitness.
Third, Mabine argues counsel failed to investigate a detective’s alleged witness
coaching during trial. But in an affidavit submitted below, trial counsel stated that he
2
Although we could dispense with some of Mabine’s arguments based on
insufficient preservation, we choose to address their merits.
4
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7325 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 5 of 5
did not believe the allegation was credible. Because Mabine has not provided additional
evidence that counsel should have found the allegation credible, he has not rebutted the
presumption that counsel acted reasonably.
Finally, Mabine asserts counsel improperly advised him to stipulate to the
interstate-commerce element of the felon-in-possession charge. But he offers no
compelling rationale for why the government would not have proven this element
without his stipulation.
In sum, Mabine has not shown that reasonable jurists could disagree over whether
his counsel was constitutionally ineffective. Because Mabine has not made the requisite
showing on his claim, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
also deny Mabine’s motions to supplement the record on 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 decision-making process.
DISMISSED
5