United States v. David Robinson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7734
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID MCDOWELL ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00087-RDB-1; 1:14-cv-03425-RDB)
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David McDowell Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure
Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David McDowell Robinson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his “Motion for Vacation of
Judgment for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(4),” which the court
construed as an untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012). 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) (2012). 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.
2
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
3