Case ID: f-appx_100/html/0954-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Benjamin A. GIBBS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-7964.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 23, 2004.
    Decided June 22, 2004.
    Benjamin A. Gibbs, Appellant pro se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Benjamin A. Gibbs appeals from the district court’s denial of his request for a certificate of appealability on various issues presented in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence. An appeal may not be taken to this court 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 appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason 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, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001).

We have reviewed the record and Gibbs’s submissions and conclude that Gibbs has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Gibbs’s “Request to Expand the Record.” 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