Court Opinion

ID: 9382261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 21:00:19.096429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.083856
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7325      Doc: 19         Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 19-7325

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff – Appellee,

                      v.

        RONALD LEE MABINE,

                             Defendant – Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:14-cr-00133-HCM-TEM-1;
        2:16-cv-00262-HCM)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                     Decided: March 24, 2023

        Before Timothy M. TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals
        for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation, Eugene E. SILER, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge of
        the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation, and
        Theodore A. MCKEE, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the
        Third Circuit, sitting by designation. 1

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

               1
                 As all members of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit are
        recused in this case, a panel of judges from outside the Circuit was appointed by the Chief
        Justice for this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 291, 294 (2018).
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7325      Doc: 19         Filed: 03/24/2023    Pg: 2 of 5

        Ronald Lee Mabine, Appellant Pro Se. Aidan Taft Grano-Mickelsen, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7325      Doc: 19          Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

         PER CURIAM:

                Ronald Lee Mabine seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

         his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying reconsideration.              His motion alleged

         constitutionally ineffective trial counsel. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

         justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).

         We will not issue a certificate of appealability without “a substantial showing of the

         denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies

         relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

         jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

         wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140–41 (2012) (citing Slack

         v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

                Following a jury trial, Mabine was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery in violation

         of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of

         violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and being a felon in possession of

         a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e). He now argues his trial

         counsel was constitutionally ineffective. He must show not only that counsel was

         constitutionally deficient, but that this deficiency prejudiced him.         Strickland v.

         Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We “strongly” presume counsel “rendered

         adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7325        Doc: 19         Filed: 03/24/2023    Pg: 4 of 5

         professional judgment.” Id. at 690. For the following reasons, Mabine’s counsel was

         not constitutionally ineffective, and we deny his request for a certificate of

         appealability. 2

                   First, Mabine asserts trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach an

         eyewitness based on her prior inconsistent statements about the color of the robber’s

         pants—she originally said they were black but testified at trial that they were grey.

         Police found grey sweatpants in the same dumpster where they found Mabine after the

         robbery. Counsel deemed this discrepancy immaterial given the witness’s otherwise

         consistent testimony and the other evidence in this case. Counsel’s strategic choice at

         trial is entitled to deference and does not support an ineffective assistance of counsel

         claim.

                   Second, Mabine contends counsel failed to call a favorable witness, who

         supposedly would have testified that Mabine collected scrap metal in the dumpster

         behind the robbery location, which explains why police found him there immediately

         after the robbery. But that testimony would not have explained why Mabine was found

         with a firearm, cash from the robbery, and the robber’s clothing, and was quickly

         identified as the robber by an eyewitness.

                   Third, Mabine argues counsel failed to investigate a detective’s alleged witness

         coaching during trial. But in an affidavit submitted below, trial counsel stated that he

               2
                  Although we could dispense with some of Mabine’s arguments based on
        insufficient preservation, we choose to address their merits.

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7325      Doc: 19        Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

         did not believe the allegation was credible. Because Mabine has not provided additional

         evidence that counsel should have found the allegation credible, he has not rebutted the

         presumption that counsel acted reasonably.

                Finally, Mabine asserts counsel improperly advised him to stipulate to the

         interstate-commerce element of the felon-in-possession charge.       But he offers no

         compelling rationale for why the government would not have proven this element

         without his stipulation.

                In sum, Mabine has not shown that reasonable jurists could disagree over whether

         his counsel was constitutionally ineffective. Because Mabine has not made the requisite

         showing on his claim, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

         also deny Mabine’s motions to supplement the record on 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 decision-making process.

                                                                                     DISMISSED

                                                      5