United States v. Gilbert , 84 F. App'x 282 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6858
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BENJAMIN J. GILBERT,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
    (CR-01-547-L, CA-02-4152-L)
    Submitted:   October 31, 2003          Decided:     December 22, 2003
    Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Francis Samuel Brocato, BROCATO, PRICE & BUSHEL, P.A., Baltimore,
    Maryland, for Appellant.   Michael Joseph Leotta, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Benjamin Gilbert seeks to appeal the district court’s denial
    of his motion for relief under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) and the
    court’s subsequent denial of his motion for reconsideration.
    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255
    proceeding 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).   A
    prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
    jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and
    that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
    also debatable or wrong.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    ,
    , 
    123 S. Ct. 1029
    , 1039 (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
    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 the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-6858

Citation Numbers: 84 F. App'x 282

Judges: Luttig, Shedd, Duncan

Filed Date: 12/22/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024