US v. Robert Winfield, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 2:95-cr-00193-REP-1,2:12-cv-00180-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998902742]. Mailed to: Robert Winfield. [12-6973]

Appeal: 12-6973

Doc: 5

Filed: 07/26/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6973

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT LEE WINFIELD, JR., a/k/a Tubbs,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (2:95-cr-00193-REP-1; 2:12-cv-00180-REP)

Submitted:

July 19, 2012

Decided:

July 26, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Tayman,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Laura Pellatiro
Newport
News,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6973

Doc: 5

Filed: 07/26/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing his “MOTION UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1651 AND/OR FEDERAL RULES OF CIVL [sic]
PROCEDURE,
U.S.C.A.

RULE
§ 2255

successive.
justice

60(b)

or

AND/OR

(West

NUNC

Supp.

The

order

is

judge

issues

a

PRO

2012)

not

and

of

pursuant

to

dismissing

appealable

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

TUNC”

unless

it

a

28
as

circuit

appealability.

28

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) (2006).

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Winfield has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2

Appeal: 12-6973

We

Doc: 5

dispense

Filed: 07/26/2012

with

oral

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3