Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Ronald GIBSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-23
Citations: 607 F. App'x 309
Docket Number: No. 15-6440
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Ronald GIBSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Ronald GIBSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-6440.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 18, 2015.
Decided: June 23, 2015.
Robert Ronald Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Ronald Gibson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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, 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.