Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07348/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07348-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tiffany Shamaine Robinson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7348

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIFFANY SHAMAINE ROBINSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:14-cr-00150-AWA-DEM-1; 2:16-cv00324-AWA)

Submitted: January 15, 2020 Decided: January 30, 2020

Before KING, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tiffany Shamaine Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7348 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/30/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Tiffany Shamaine Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief 

on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 a certificate of appealability 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: 19-7348 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/30/2020 Pg: 2 of 2