United States v. Bernard Gibson, Sr. , 459 F. App'x 266 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-6963
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BERNARD GIBSON, SR., a/k/a Bernard Willis,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
    Judge. (8:94-cr-00454-PJM-2)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2011            Decided:   December 22, 2011
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.    Sandra Wilkinson,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Bernard    Gibson,     Sr.,       seeks    to    appeal        the    district
    court’s order denying relief on his self-styled “Petition for
    Relief From Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    60(d) and Rule 60(b)[.]”             Gibson has unsuccessfully challenged
    his sentence numerous times, including in a true 28 U.S.C.A.
    § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion.                 Because Gibson’s motion was a
    successive      and     unauthorized        § 2255      motion,        see     28     U.S.C.
    § 2255(h); In re Vial, 
    115 F.3d 1192
    , 1194 (4th Cir. 1997), the
    district court was obligated to dismiss the motion, see United
    States v. Winestock, 
    340 F.3d 200
    , 205 (4th Cir. 2003), and the
    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
    a certificate of appealability.                 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006);
    Reid v. Angelone, 
    369 F.3d 363
    , 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
    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) (2006).                  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
    2
    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    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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-6963

Citation Numbers: 459 F. App'x 266

Filed Date: 12/22/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2014