United States v. Gibson ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7406
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VANCE MARCEL GIBSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-7407
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VANCE MARCEL GIBSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (6:93-cr-00211-WLO-1; 1:06-cv-00332-WLO; 1:06-cv-
00436-WLO)
Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 4, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vance Marcel Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Vance Marcel Gibson seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the magistrate
judge’s recommendations and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000) motion and his motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2000),
which the district court construed as a successive § 2255 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). 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 records and conclude that Gibson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss both appeals. 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
- 3 -