United States v. Gibbs , 100 F. App'x 954 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7964
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BENJAMIN A. GIBBS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-98-322; CA-02-2970-08)
Submitted: April 23, 2004 Decided: June 22, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin A. Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin A. Gibbs appeals from the district court’s
denial of his request for a certificate of appealability on various
issues presented in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate
his sentence. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the
final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason would find that
his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have reviewed the record and Gibbs’s submissions and
conclude that Gibbs has not made the requisite showing. We
therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We further deny Gibbs’s “Request to Expand the Record.”
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -