Court Opinion

ID: 1013729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:05:56.00659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:25.198797
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6123

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JAMES T. ROBINSON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-274; CA-02-702-3)

Submitted:   June 18, 2004                 Decided:   July 16, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James T. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.  Roderick Charles Young,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            James T. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders,    one   accepting    the    report   of     and    recommendation   of   a

magistrate judge, and the other denying relief on his amended

motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).                An appeal may not be

taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                  28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).            A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.    Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683

(4th Cir. 2001).      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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                         DISMISSED

                                      - 2 -