US v. Carlos Robinson

Filing 920091105

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8465

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLOS DEMOND ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:03-cr-00616-HMH-1; 6:08-cv-70114-HMH)

Submitted:

September 29, 2009

Decided:

November 5, 2009

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darren S. Haley, HALEY & PARKER, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Carlos Demond Robinson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 28 U.S.C. standard find the that § 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). A that the or

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not made the of requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss and the to we deny a The are

certificate motions denied. legal for

appealability of

appeal. consolidate

appointment

counsel

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are adequately presented in the materials

contentions

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3