Court Opinion

ID: 1025368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:48:47.284877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:51.030158
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                No. 07-7464

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ALPHONSO BUSTER GILBERT, SR.,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (7:03-cr-00109-jct-1; 7:06-cv-00740-jct)

Submitted:     March 27, 2008                 Decided:   April 2, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alphonso Buster Gilbert, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.      Ronald Andrew
Bassford, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Alphonso   Buster   Gilbert,   Sr.,    seeks   to   appeal   the

district court’s 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) (2000). 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).         We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gilbert 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

                                 - 2 -