From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Gibson

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Mar 10, 2008
269 F. App'x 301 (4th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 08-6035.

Submitted: February 28, 2008.

Decided: March 10, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:94-cr-00454-PJM-2; 8:05-cv-01437-PJM).

Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Bernard Gibson, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion to amend his motion tiled under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and the court's order denying his motion to reconsider. The district court found that there was no pending § 2255 motion to amend and that, in any event, Gibson's motions were tantamount to a successive § 2255 motion, for which Gibson had not obtained authorization to file. The orders are not appealable 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 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Gibson

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Mar 10, 2008
269 F. App'x 301 (4th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Gibson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard GIBSON, Sr.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Mar 10, 2008

Citations

269 F. App'x 301 (4th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Gibson v. United States

Bernard GIBSON, Sr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.Case below, 269 Fed.Appx. 301. Motion of petitioner for…