United States v. Cecil Gilbert ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-6583
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CECIL VANN GILBERT,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:14-cr-00051-FL-1; 4:15-cv-00104-
    FL)
    Submitted: November 30, 2018                                  Decided: December 3, 2018
    Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Cecil Vann Gilbert, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Cecil Vann Gilbert seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
    recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
    certificate of appealability.    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B) (2012).         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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the
    merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
    find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 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 a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 
    529 U.S. at 484-85
    .
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gilbert 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 this court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-6583

Filed Date: 12/3/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021