Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    United States v. Robbie Suttles, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document discusses an appeal by Robbie Suttles of a district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court denies a certificate of appealability, finding that Suttles did not make the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also affirms the district court's denial of coram nobis relief since Suttles is currently in custody pursuant to his conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Robbie Suttles, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    22 views3 pages
    The document discusses an appeal by Robbie Suttles of a district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court denies a certificate of appealability, finding that Suttles did not make the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also affirms the district court's denial of coram nobis relief since Suttles is currently in custody pursuant to his conviction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-11-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6476

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses an appeal by Robbie Suttles of a district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court denies a certificate of appealability, finding that Suttles did not make the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also affirms the district court's denial of coram nobis relief since Suttles is currently in custody pursuant to his conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    22 views3 pages

    United States v. Robbie Suttles, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document discusses an appeal by Robbie Suttles of a district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court denies a certificate of appealability, finding that Suttles did not make the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also affirms the district court's denial of coram nobis relief since Suttles is currently in custody pursuant to his conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    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 courts
    order

    dismissing

    motion.
    judge

    his

    28

    2255

    (West

    Supp.

    2013)

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
    issue

    U.S.C.A.

    absent

    of

    28

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    appealability.

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

    of

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    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.
    529 U.S. at 484-85.

    Slack,

    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
    2

    remedy.

    United

    States

    v.

    Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
    marks

    omitted).

    petitioners
    convictions.
    pursuant

    to

    who

    The
    are

    Id.
    his

    remedy
    no

    is

    longer

    Because

    limited,
    in

    we

    to

    those

    pursuant

    to

    their

    custody

    Suttles

    conviction,

    moreover,

    is

    affirm

    currently
    the

    in

    custody

    district

    courts

    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.
    appoint

    counsel

    but

    grant

    supplemental informal brief.

    We also deny Suttles motions to


    his

    motion

    for

    leave

    to

    file

    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

    You might also like