Gary Robinson v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00231-F-1,5:11-cv-00725-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999325196]. Mailed to: Gary Robinson. [13-7822]

Appeal: 13-7822

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/28/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7822

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARY WAYNE ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00231-F-1; 5:11-cv-00725-F)

Submitted:

March 25, 2014

Decided:

March 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Bullock Currin, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ethan A. Ontjes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7822

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/28/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gary

Wayne

Robinson

denying

relief

seeks

28

U.S.C.

the

district

order

motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

his

appeal

court’s

judge

on

to

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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.

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 and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 13-7822

Doc: 11

contentions

are

Filed: 03/28/2014

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3