Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Gibson, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bernard Gibson Jr.'s appeal of a district court order denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court concluded that Gibson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong. As such, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-02-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7618

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bernard Gibson Jr.'s appeal of a district court order denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court concluded that Gibson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong. As such, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    United States v. Gibson, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bernard Gibson Jr.'s appeal of a district court order denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court concluded that Gibson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong. As such, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7618

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BERNARD GIBSON, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR94-454-PJM; CA-00-2969-PJM)

    Submitted: January 29, 2004

    Decided:

    February 9, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Bernard Gibson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Bernard Gibson, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the district courts order denying relief on his motion filed under
    28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000).

    The order is not appealable unless a

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).
    not

    issue

    absent

    A certificate of appealability will

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    of

    A prisoner

    satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists


    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 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.


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like