Robert Smith v. State of North Carolina, No. 08-7210 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7210 ROBERT EUGENE SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:07-hc-02107-H) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 20, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Eugene Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Eugene Smith seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a substantial satisfies constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not right. jurists of 28 this by U.S.C. find the of the § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing that by of (2000). demonstrating any district denial 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 Smith 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

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.