UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6476
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBBIE SUTTLES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00060-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00177-MR)
Submitted: October 31, 2013 Decided: November 13, 2013
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Robbie Suttles, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Louise Rikard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robbie Suttles seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district 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). 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 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Suttles has not made the requisite showing.
Suttles alternatively requested the district court to
grant him relief pursuant to a writ of error coram nobis. “As a
remedy of last resort, the writ of error coram nobis is granted
only where an error is of the most fundamental character and
there exists no other available remedy.” United States v.
2
Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The remedy is limited, moreover, to those
petitioners who are no longer in custody pursuant to their
convictions. Id. Because Suttles is currently in custody
pursuant to his conviction, we affirm the district court’s
denial of coram nobis relief.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the appeal in
part, and affirm in part. We also deny Suttles’ motions to
appoint counsel but grant his motion for leave to file a
supplemental informal brief. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3