US v. Carlos Robinson, No. 10-7197 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7197 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CARLOS DEMOND ROBINSON, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:03-cr-00616-HMH-1) Submitted: January 28, 2011 Decided: March 15, 2011 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Demond Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlos Demond Robinson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion, which Robinson filed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). certificate of appealability will not issue absent A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. * We Because the convictions, the § 2255 motion over See United States 2003). have independently reviewed record and Rule 60(b) motion directly attacked Robinson s motion was an unauthorized and successive which the district court lacked jurisdiction. v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2 conclude that Accordingly, Robinson we has deny not the made motion the requisite for a showing. certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Robinson s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application successive § 2255 motion. See F.3d to at 208. In order to file a second or United States v. Winestock, 340 obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. Robinson s 28 claims U.S.C.A. do not § 2255(h) satisfy either (West of Supp. these 2010). criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
