US v. Prentis Roberts, No. 15-7406 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7406 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PRENTIS TREWAYNE ROBERTS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00078-HEH-1; 3:15-cv-00491-HEH) Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Prentis Trewayne Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Prentis court’s Trewayne order dismissing (2012) motion. justice or 28 U.S.C. Roberts as seeks to appeal successive his 28 the district U.S.C. § 2255 The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues § 2253(c)(1)(B) a certificate (2012). of A appealability. certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roberts has not made the requisite showing. deny a certificate We dispense with of oral appealability argument 2 and because Accordingly, we dismiss the the facts appeal. and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
