Opinion

Robinson v. Jackson

  • 315 F. App'x 493
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Mar 9, 2009
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Traxler, King, Hamilton
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 54.5%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7943

KEITH DOUGLAS ROBINSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HERBERT JACKSON, Superintendent, Brown Creek Correctional

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,

Senior District Judge. (5:08-cv-00068-GCM)

Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 9, 2009

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Douglas Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Keith Douglas Robinson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely 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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.