Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06800/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06800-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Antoine Darden
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERTO ANTOINE DARDEN, a/k/a Dizz-e, a/k/a Javon,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00052-AWA-LRL-1; 

4:14-cv-00136-AWA)

Submitted: December 20, 2019 Decided: January 30, 2020

Before DIAZ, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roberto Antoine Darden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6800 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/30/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Roberto Antoine Darden seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). 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 Darden has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Darden’s 

motion for counsel, 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6800 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/30/2020 Pg: 2 of 2