Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Robinson v. McCabe, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which James Earl Robinson appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Robinson did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-02-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7476

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which James Earl Robinson appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Robinson did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    Robinson v. McCabe, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which James Earl Robinson appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Robinson did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7476

    JAMES EARL ROBINSON,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    SHERWOOD R. MCCABE,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Malcolm J. Howard,
    District Judge. (CA-02-471-HO)

    Submitted: January 29, 2004

    Decided:

    February 6, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Earl Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    James Earl Robinson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254
    (2000).

    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

    2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating
    constitutional

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    this

    would

    and

    that

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    his

    dispositive

    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or


    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
    676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed the

    record and conclude that Robinson has not made the requisite
    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal.


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like