Royal v. Robinson, No. 07-6213 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6213 JAMES RUSSELL ROYAL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus A. D. ROBINSON, Respondent - Appellee. No. 07-6224 JAMES R. ROYAL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus A. D. ROBINSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00416-CMH) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. September 6, 2007 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeroyd Wiley Greene, III, ROBINSON & GREENE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: James Russell Royal seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The orders are 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. § 2253(c)(2) demonstrating (2000). that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 28 U.S.C. standard find that by 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 Royal has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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 - 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.