Court Opinion

ID: 4034008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-15 19:01:02.511124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:12.947577
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 16-6990

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MICHAEL EDWARD GILL, a/k/a Marcus Porter, a/k/a Mad, a/k/a
Madden, a/k/a Mangler, a/k/a Manglo,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:10-cr-00296-HMH-5; 6:16-cv-02188-HMH)

Submitted:   September 13, 2016          Decided:   September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Edward Gill, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr.,
Jimmie Ewing, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina; Carrie Fisher Sherard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Michael Edward Gill seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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)

(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

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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.

      We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Gill 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

                                               2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3