US v. Darian Robinson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999050467-2] Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00032-MR-4,1:12-cv-00276-MR. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999123000]. Mailed to: Darian Robinson. [13-6119]
Appeal: 13-6119
Doc: 11
Filed: 06/05/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6119
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARIAN KENDELL ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00032-MR-4; 1:12-cv-00276-MR)
Submitted:
May 30, 2013
Decided:
June 5, 2013
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darian Kendell Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Thomas Richard
Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-6119
Doc: 11
Filed: 06/05/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Darian Kendell Robinson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a
successive
28
U.S.C.A.
§ 2255
dismissing it on that basis.
a
circuit
justice
appealability.
or
(West
Supp.
2012)
motion,
and
The order is not appealable unless
judge
issues
a
certificate
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
of
A certificate
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner
satisfies
this
jurists
would
reasonable
standard
find
by
that
demonstrating
the
district
that
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).
denies
relief
demonstrate
both
on
procedural
that
the
When the district court
grounds,
dispositive
the
prisoner
procedural
ruling
must
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, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
2
Appeal: 13-6119
Doc: 11
Filed: 06/05/2013
Pg: 3 of 3
Additionally, we construe Robinson’s notice of appeal
and
informal
brief
as
an
application
to
file
a
second
or
successive § 2255 motion.
United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).
In order to obtain authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
based on either:
(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2012).
not
satisfy
either
of
these
criteria.
Robinson’s claims do
Therefore,
we
deny
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?