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: 2013-02-26
Citations: 511 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 12-8091
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard GIBSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 511
Pages: 263–264

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard GIBSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-8091.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 21, 2013.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2013.
Bernard Gibson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Chan Park, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland; Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Gibson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's margin order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's April 14, 2003, order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) 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) (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). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.