United States v. Raymond Gill ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6839
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND EDWARD GILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:86-cr-00009-GLR-1)
Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 22, 2021
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Edward Gill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Edward Gill appeals the district court’s orders denying his petitions for
writs of error coram nobis, in part, as successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255motions, and in part for failing to state a colorable claim for coram nobis relief. A
certificate of appealability is not required to address the district court’s jurisdictional
dismissal of Gill’s petitions as successive § 2255 motions. See United States v. McRae,
793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
We conclude that the district court properly construed Gill’s requests for coram
nobis relief as successive § 2255 motions over which it lacked jurisdiction. See Gonzalez
v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005). Nor do we discern any error in the court’s ruling
that Gill was not entitled to coram nobis relief. See United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d
248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012) (discussing requirements for coram nobis relief); United States v.
Gamboa, 608 F.3d 492, 495 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he statutory limits on second or successive
habeas petitions do not create a ‘gap’ in the post-conviction landscape that can be filled
with the common law writs.” (internal block quotation omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s orders. United States v. Gill, No. 1:86-cr-00009-GLR-1 (D. Md. May
13, 2021; July 20, 2021). 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.
AFFIRMED
2