Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gibson v. Sondervan, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Louis Gonzell Gibson's appeal of the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition as untimely. The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Gibson did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Gibson a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-01-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7683

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Louis Gonzell Gibson's appeal of the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition as untimely. The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Gibson did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Gibson 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
    14 views2 pages

    Gibson v. Sondervan, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Louis Gonzell Gibson's appeal of the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition as untimely. The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Gibson did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Gibson 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 03-7683

    LOUIS GONZELL GIBSON,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN, Commissioner; ATTORNEY
    GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    William M. Nickerson, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-03-2178-WMN)

    Submitted: January 15, 2004

    Decided:

    January 28, 2004

    Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Louis Gonzell Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Edward Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Louis Gonzell Gibson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254
    (2000).

    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

    habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues


    a certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating
    constitutional

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    and

    would
    that

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    his

    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. 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 -

    You might also like