Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bernard Gibson, Jr. v. Eric Wilson, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    1) The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bernard Gibson Jr.'s appeal of a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which was correctly treated as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, as well as the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. 2) The court concluded that Gibson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which requires a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The court denied Gibson's application to proceed in forma pauperis, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-11-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7093

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bernard Gibson Jr.'s appeal of a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which was correctly treated as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, as well as the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. 2) The court concluded that Gibson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which requires a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The court denied Gibson's application to proceed in forma pauperis, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views3 pages

    Bernard Gibson, Jr. v. Eric Wilson, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Bernard Gibson Jr.'s appeal of a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which was correctly treated as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, as well as the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. 2) The court concluded that Gibson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which requires a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The court denied Gibson's application to proceed in forma pauperis, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-7093

    BERNARD GIBSON, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    ERIC D. WILSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (1:14-cv-00454-JCC-TRJ)

    Submitted:

    November 20, 2014

    Decided:

    November 25, 2014

    Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Bernard Gibson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Bernard
    courts

    order

    Gibson,

    denying

    Jr.,

    relief

    seeks

    on

    to

    his

    28

    appeal

    the

    U.S.C.

    district

    2241

    (2012)

    petition, which the court correctly treated as a successive 28


    U.S.C.

    2255

    (2012)

    motion,

    as

    well

    as

    Gibsons Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.


    appealable

    unless

    circuit

    certificate of appealability.
    A

    certificate

    of

    justice

    its

    order

    denying

    The orders are not


    or

    judge

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28


    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(2)

    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    courts

    debatable

    or

    (2012).
    a

    When

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    the

    district

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    court

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    denies

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    473,

    484

    (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).


    When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
    prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
    ruling

    is

    debatable,

    and

    that

    the

    motion

    states

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    debatable

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at 484-85.
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Gibson has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny Gibsons application to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a


    2

    certificate
    dispense

    of

    with

    contentions

    are

    appealability,
    oral

    argument

    adequately

    and

    dismiss

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    the

    appeal.

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like