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: 2009-05-01
Citations: 324 F. App'x 210
Docket Number: No. 08-8314
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard GIBSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard GIBSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-8314.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2009.
Decided: May 1, 2009.
Bernard Gibson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Chan Park, Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Gibson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his petition for a writ of audita querela as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). 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.