Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06990/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06990-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Edward Gill
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6990

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL EDWARD GILL, a/k/a Marcus Porter, a/k/a Mad, a/k/a 

Madden, a/k/a Mangler, a/k/a Manglo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:10-cr-00296-HMH-5; 6:16-cv-02188-HMH)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Edward Gill, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., 

Jimmie Ewing, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina; Carrie Fisher Sherard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6990 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/15/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Edward Gill seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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 

Gill 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: 16-6990 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/15/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6990 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/15/2016 Pg: 3 of 3