467 F. App'x 100
3d Cir.2012Background
- In 2004, Robinson pled guilty to three counts of bank robbery and one count of heroin possession by a prisoner.
- District Court sentenced him to 151 months in prison, five years of supervised release, and restitution.
- This Court affirms the sentence in United States v. Robinson, 293 F. App’x 958 (3d Cir. 2008).
- Robinson filed an initial 2009 § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance at sentencing.
- The District Court denied the 2009 motion on the merits on March 26, 2010, and Robinson did not seek a COA.
- In 2011, Robinson filed another § 2255 motion, which the District Court dismissed as second or successive; reconsideration was denied on December 6, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant a COA for the § 2255 denial | Robinson asserts reasonable jurists would debate the District Court’s procedural ruling and the merits. | Government contends no debatable issue exists and the claims lack merit. | COA denied; no debatable procedural issue or meritorious § 2255 claim. |
| Whether the § 2255 motion was properly deemed second or successive | Robinson contends his first motion should not count because of pending rehearing in direct appeal. | District Court acted within authority; motions are similar and the claim is not properly before. | Motion correctly deemed second or successive; affirmed. |
| Whether the restitution waiver motion was properly denied | Robinson argues restitution should be waived or suspended due to funds from family and hardship. | No basis to alter restitution or suspend payments; district court’s rationale is not shown but relief denied stands. | Motion affirmed; no basis for relief or extension found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 F.3d 473 (2000) (COA standard for procedural rulings in § 2255 cases)
- United States v. Outen, 286 F.3d 622 (2d Cir. 2002) (pendency of direct appeal allowed district court consideration of § 2255)
- United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999) (form § 2255 motions; restrictions on second or successive motions)
- United States v. Thomas, 221 F.3d 430 (3d Cir. 2000) (vague and conclusory § 2255 claims subject to dismissal)
- McGee v. Martinez, 627 F.3d 933 (3d Cir. 2010) (§ 2241 challenges cognizable in district of confinement)
- McGhee v. Clark, 166 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 1999) (restitution payments may come from external funds)
- United States v. Robinson, 331 F. App’x 907 (3d Cir. 2009) (affirmed district court on restitution basis due to lack of jurisdiction basis)