Keith Robinson v. Herbert Jackson, No. 08-7943 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7943 KEITH DOUGLAS ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HERBERT JACKSON, Institution, Superintendent, Brown Creek Correctional Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:08-cv-00068-GCM) Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and Circuit Judge. March 9, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Douglas Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keith Douglas Robinson seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. or The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 U.S.C. this would claims showing by the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by of (2000). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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 Robinson has not made the requisite showing. motion for appeal. legal before a certificate Accordingly, we deny Robinson s of appealability and dismiss the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 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.