US v. Sean Robinson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [1000285344-3]; denying Motion for certificate of appealability [1000285344-2], [1000299290-2]. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00264-RJC-DSC-1,3:17-cv-00124-RJC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000303515]. Mailed to: Sean Maurice Robinson. [18-6442]

Appeal: 18-6442

Doc: 14

Filed: 05/30/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6442

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SEAN MAURICE ROBINSON, a/k/a Saun Maurice Robinson,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cr-00264-RJC-DSC-1;
3:17-cv-00124-RJC)

Submitted: May 24, 2018

Decided: May 30, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Maurice Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Joseph Enright, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6442

Doc: 14

Filed: 05/30/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Sean Maurice 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 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 Robinson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Robinson’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and for release pending appeal, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2