Opinion
No. 14-7734
03-02-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID MCDOWELL ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant.
David McDowell Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00087-RDB-1; 1:14-cv-03425-RDB) Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David McDowell Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
David McDowell Robinson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his "Motion for Vacation of Judgment for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(4)," which the court construed as an untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). 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) (2012). 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