Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Benita Dinkins-Robinson, 18-7250 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-7250 Visitors: 49
Filed: Aug. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7250 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BENITA DINKINS-ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00300-TLW-1; 3:18-cv-00435-TLW) Submitted: August 23, 2019 Decided: August 30, 2019 Before MOTZ, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublishe
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-7250


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

BENITA DINKINS-ROBINSON,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia.    Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge.         (3:14-cr-00300-TLW-1;
3:18-cv-00435-TLW)


Submitted: August 23, 2019                                        Decided: August 30, 2019


Before MOTZ, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Benita Dinkins-Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Winston David Holliday, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Benita Dinkins-Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We previously granted a certificate of appealability on

four discrete issues. As to those claims, we have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

United States v. Dinkins-Robinson, Nos. 3:14-cr-00300-TLW-1; 3:18-cv-00435-TLW

(D.S.C. Sept. 7, 2018). As to the claims for which a certificate of appealability was

denied, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Dinkins-Robinson’s motion for an evidentiary

hearing. 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.

                                                                  AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                  DISMISSED IN PART




                                           2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer