Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Richard Robinson v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Richard Robinson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that Robinson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition. Specifically, Robinson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability, denied Robinson's request to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Richard Robinson v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Richard Robinson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that Robinson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition. Specifically, Robinson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability, denied Robinson's request to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-04-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7983

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Richard Robinson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that Robinson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition. Specifically, Robinson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability, denied Robinson's request to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views3 pages

    Richard Robinson v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Richard Robinson's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that Robinson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition. Specifically, Robinson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability, denied Robinson's request to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-7983

    RICHARD E. ROBINSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (1:13-cv-00371-GBL-IDD)

    Submitted:

    April 17, 2014

    Decided:

    April 21, 2014

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Richard E. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Theresa Armstrong,


    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Richard
    courts

    order

    petition.

    E.

    Robinson

    denying

    relief

    seeks
    on

    his

    to

    appeal

    28

    U.S.C.

    district

    2254

    (2012)

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

    or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
    issue

    the

    absent

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    See 28 U.S.C.

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).

    of

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    When the district court denies relief on procedural

    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive


    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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, deny leave to proceed in


    forma pauperis, 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

    You might also like