US v. Robert Rood, IV

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999687436-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00052-CMH-1,1:14-cv-01144-CMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999765147].. [15-7548]

Appeal: 15-7548

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7548

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT FULTON ROOD, IV,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00052-CMH-1; 1:14-cv-01144-CMH)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Decided:

March 1, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Fulton Rood, IV, Appellant Pro Se. Uzo Enyinnaya Asonye,
Michael
Edward
Rich,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys,
Christopher John Catizone, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7548

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert Fulton Rood, IV, seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion
and denying his motion for reconsideration.

The orders are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

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 (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 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
Rood has not made the requisite showing.
leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis,

appealability, and dismiss the appeal.

Accordingly, we deny

deny

a

certificate

of

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 15-7548

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3