US v. Dorsey, No. 05-7256 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7256 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT STERLING DORSEY, a/k/a Pete Dorsey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-99-254) Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: May 30, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG,1 and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Sterling Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 1 Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). PER CURIAM: Robert Sterling Dorsey seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).2 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. § 2253(c)(2) demonstrating constitutional (2000). that A prisoner reasonable claims are satisfies jurists debatable and would that this 28 U.S.C. standard find any that by his dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 Dorsey 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 The district court recharacterized Dorsey s paper entitled motion to amend sentence as a motion to correct sentence, presumably brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). - 2 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
