United States of America v. ROBERTO ANTOINE DARDEN, a/k/a Dizz-e, a/k/a Javon

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERTO ANTOINE DARDEN, a/k/a Dizz-e, a/k/a Javon,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00052-AWA-LRL-1;
4:14-cv-00136-AWA)

Submitted: December 20, 2019 Decided: January 30, 2020

Before DIAZ, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roberto Antoine Darden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
PER CURIAM:

Roberto Antoine Darden seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). 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 Darden has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Darden’s
motion for counsel, and dismiss the appeal. 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