United States v. Gibson , 255 F. App'x 721 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •               Certiorari dismissed, October 6, 2008
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7398
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BERNARD GIBSON, SR., a/k/a Bernard Willis,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:94-
    cr-00454-PJM; 8:07-cv-01293-PJM)
    Submitted:   November 15, 2007         Decided:     November 27, 2007
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Bernard Gibson, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders (1) treating his petition for a writ of audita querela as a
    successive 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion and dismissing it on that
    basis, and (2) denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.                 The
    orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
    a certificate of appealability.         
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000);
    Reid v. Angelone, 
    369 F.3d 363
    , 369 (4th Cir. 2004).         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
    reasonable     jurists   would   find   that   any    assessment    of   the
    constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong
    and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is
    likewise debatable.      Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38
    (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
    
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that Gibson has not made the
    requisite    showing.     Accordingly,    we   deny    a   certificate   of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.           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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7398

Citation Numbers: 255 F. App'x 721

Judges: Duncan, Motz, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 11/27/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023