US v. Kareem Robinson
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability.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. . Mailed to: Kareem Robinson. [16-7261]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
December 20, 2016
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Kareem Lomax Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
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).
When the district court denies
(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
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Robinson has not made the requisite showing.
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?