Court Opinion

ID: 1024277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:31:09.499789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:05.321613
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-6888

CHARLES DEMONT ROBINSON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

A.D. ROBINSON, Warden,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00246-TSE)

Submitted:   November 15, 2007       Decided:   November 21, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Demont Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Charles Demont Robinson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition.    The order is not appealable 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

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.               Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                 We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has

not made the requisite showing.             Accordingly, we deny Robinson’s

motion for 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 -