US v. Kareem Robinson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00019-MFU-1, 5:15-cv-80859-MFU-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999992629]. Mailed to: Kareem Robinson. [16-7261]

Appeal: 16-7261

Doc: 6

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7261

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KAREEM LOMAX ROBINSON, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00019-MFU-1; 5:15-cv-80859-MFU-RSB)

Submitted:

December 20, 2016

Decided:

December 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kareem Lomax Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst,
Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, Jeb Thomas
Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth G. Wright,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Harrisonburg, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7261

Doc: 6

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kareem Lomax Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order 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

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

A certificate of 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.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

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
Robinson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 16-7261

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 12/22/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3