United States v. Bernard Gibson, Sr. , 548 F. App'x 913 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7595
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; 8:13-cv-01825-PJM)
Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Chan
Park, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing his “Motion for Relief in the Interest
of Justice Under Section 2255(f)(3) of Title 28 (second-in-
time)” as a successive and unauthorized habeas motion, and
denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders
are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
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
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
2
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
3