US v. Bobby Dinkins

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00254-MR-1,3:15-cv-00179-MR. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999705842]. Mailed to: Bobby Dinkins. [15-7340]

Appeal: 15-7340

Doc: 6

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7340

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
and
LINDA THOMAS, Warden of FCI-Edgefield,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOBBY ARION DINKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00254-MR-1)

Submitted:

November 19, 2015

Decided:

November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Arion Dinkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Dana Owen Washington,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7340

Doc: 6

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bobby Arion Dinkins seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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 petition 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
Dinkins has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

2

We

legal

Appeal: 15-7340

Doc: 6

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3