US v. Robert Murray

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00024-RGD-DEM-1,2:12-cv-00531-RGD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999304377]. Mailed to: Robert Murray. [13-7718]

Appeal: 13-7718

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/26/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7718

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT MURRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00024-RGD-DEM-1; 2:12-cv-00531-RGD)

Submitted:

February 20, 2014

Decided:

February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Murray, Appellant Pro Se. V. Kathleen Dougherty, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7718

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/26/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert

Murray

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. *

The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Murray has not made the requisite showing.
*

Accordingly, we

The matter was referred to the magistrate judge for a
report and recommendation only as to ground one in Murray’s
motion.

2

Appeal: 13-7718

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/26/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3