Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard GIBSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-21
Citations: 254 F. App'x 993
Docket Number: No. 07-6490
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bernard GIBSON, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 254
Pages: 993–993

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bernard GIBSON, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6490.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2007.
Decided: Nov. 21, 2007.
Bernard Gibson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Gibson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his petition for a writ of audita querela as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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, 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, 683-84 (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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.