Case ID: f-appx_56/html/0171-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice D. ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-6693.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 26, 2003.
    Maurice D. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Maurice D. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from a final order denying relief under this section unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the [motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Robinson has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Robinson, Nos. CR-98-47; CA-01-49-2 (E.D.Va. Mar. 2, 2001). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.