US v. Robinson, No. 05-7647 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7647 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANK LEON ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-98-523; CA-01-2881) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Leon Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Frank Leon Robinson seeks to appeal a district court order denying as a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 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). not issue absent a constitutional right. A certificate of appealability will substantial showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). of a A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any 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). the record showing. and conclude Robinson We have independently reviewed has not made the requisite Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and - 2 - dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in the aid the decisional process.* DISMISSED * To under 28 U.S.C. § U.S. 220 Apprendi the extent that Robinson may be seeking authorization U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second and successive 28 2255 (2000) motion based upon United States v. Booker, 543 (2005); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2005); and v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we deny authorization. - 3 -
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.
