Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07406/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07406-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Prentis Trewayne Roberts
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7406

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

PRENTIS TREWAYNE ROBERTS, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:09-cr-00078-HEH-1; 3:15-cv-00491-HEH) 

Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Prentis Trewayne Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-7406 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Prentis Trewayne Roberts seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as successive 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 

Roberts 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: 15-7406 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/20/2015 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: 15-7406 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3