US v. Robbie Suttles, No. 13-6476 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6476 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBBIE SUTTLES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00060-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00177-MR) Submitted: October 31, 2013 Decided: November 13, 2013 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robbie Suttles, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Louise Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robbie Suttles seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing motion. judge his 28 § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue U.S.C.A. absent a of 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. appealability. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Suttles has not made the requisite showing. Suttles alternatively requested the district court to grant him relief pursuant to a writ of error coram nobis. As a remedy of last resort, the writ of error coram nobis is granted only where an error is of the most fundamental character and there exists no other available 2 remedy. United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). petitioners convictions. pursuant to who The are Id. his remedy no is longer limited, conviction, is to those pursuant to their custody Suttles Because in moreover, we affirm currently the in custody district court s denial of coram nobis relief. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the appeal in part, and affirm in part. appoint counsel but grant supplemental informal brief. We also deny Suttles motions to his motion for leave to file a 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 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.
