US v. Robbie Suttle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999190266-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999155509-2]; granting Motion for leave to file [999155516-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999085121-2] Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00060-MR-1,1:12-cv-00177-MR. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999238719]. Mailed to: Robbie Suttles. [13-6476]

Appeal: 13-6476

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/13/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6476

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBBIE SUTTLES,
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-00060-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00177-MR)

Submitted:

October 31, 2013

Decided:

November 13, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Robbie Suttles, Appellant Pro Se.
Melissa Louise Rikard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6476

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/13/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robbie Suttles seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

motion.
judge

his

28

§ 2255

(West

Supp.

2013)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

U.S.C.A.

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Suttles has not made the requisite showing.
Suttles alternatively requested the district court to
grant him relief pursuant to a writ of error coram nobis.

“As a

remedy of last resort, the writ of error coram nobis is granted
only where an error is of the most fundamental character and
there

exists

no

other

available
2

remedy.”

United

States

v.

Appeal: 13-6476

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/13/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks

omitted).

petitioners
convictions.
pursuant

to

who

The
are

Id.
his

remedy
no

is

longer

Because

limited,
in

we

to

those

pursuant

to

their

custody

Suttles

conviction,

moreover,

is

affirm

currently
the

in

custody

district

court’s

denial of coram nobis relief.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the appeal in
part, and affirm in part.
appoint

counsel

but

grant

supplemental informal brief.

We also deny Suttles’ motions to
his

motion

for

leave

to

file

a

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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3