Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06680/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06680-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6680

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT GLENN FORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:10-cr-00083-AWA-FBS-1; 2:13-cv-00534-AWA)

Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016 

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Mallory Kent, LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MALLORY KENT, 

Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellant. Melissa Elaine O’Boyle, 

Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6680 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Glenn Ford 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 

Ford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 16-6680 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6680 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pg: 3 of 3