US v. David Robinson, No. 08-8085 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8085 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID JOSE ROBINSON, a/k/a Crockett, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00065-JPB-JES-1; 3:07-cv-00046JPB-JES) Submitted: January 13, 2009 Before WILLIAMS, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and TRAXLER January 20, 2009 and KING, Circuit Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Jose Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Jose Robinson seeks to appeal the district court s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying unless a reconsideration. circuit appealability. justice or The judge orders are issues not a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). appealable certificate of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 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 Robinson has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because the the we deny appeal. facts and a We 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.
