Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06035/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6035

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BERNARD GIBSON, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:94-

cr-00454-PJM-2; 8:05-cv-01437-PJM)

Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 10, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6035 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/10/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Gibson, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion to amend his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and the court’s order denying his motion

to reconsider. The district court found that there was no pending

§ 2255 motion to amend and that, in any event, Gibson’s motions

were tantamount to a successive § 2255 motion, for which Gibson had

not obtained authorization to file. The orders are not appealable

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) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 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

Appeal: 08-6035 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/10/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 08-6035 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/10/2008 Pg: 3 of 3