UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7343
WILLIAM T. ROBINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES C. CACHERIS,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 03-7412
WILLIAM T. ROBINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES C. CACHERIS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-03-957-AM)
Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 23, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William T. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, William T. Robinson, a
state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
his motion to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petition as untimely. 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). A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the
district court’s order denying Robinson’s post-judgment motion.
See Reid v. Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 2004 WL 1119646 (4th Cir. May
19, 2004) (No. 03-6146). A certificate of appealability will not
issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that
any 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. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 4 -