United States v. Emmanuel Robinson ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7321 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7321
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EMMANUEL O. ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cr-00149-MHL-1; 3:20-cv-00604-
MHL)
Submitted: June 15, 2023 Decided: June 20, 2023
Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmanuel O. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7321 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel O. 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 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