Court Opinion

ID: 9956248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 17:00:59.537043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:05.547437
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7352       Doc: 23         Filed: 03/27/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7352

        ROBERT BRUCE GILLINS,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN R. HUDGINS,

                             Respondent - Appellee,

                      and

        UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY HAZELTON; DIRECTOR MICHAEL
        CARVAJAL, Bureau of Prisons,

                             Respondents.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00093-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: February 23, 2024                                      Decided: March 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert Bruce Gillins, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7352      Doc: 23          Filed: 03/27/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert Bruce Gillins, a federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

        challenging the execution of his sentence, arguing that his federal and state sentences

        should have run concurrently and that he was denied due process and equal protection with

        regard to sentencing credit. The district court denied relief, finding that Gillins had failed

        to exhaust administrative remedies and that, in any event, his due process claim failed on

        the merits. We dismissed Gillins’ appeal of that order as interlocutory because the district

        court had not addressed the equal protection claim. Gillins v. Hudgins, No. 22-6069, 2022

        WL 1711685 (4th Cir. May 27, 2022). On remand, the district court concluded that Gillins

        had not fully exhausted his claim, that he failed to show exhaustion should be excused, and

        that, in any event, the equal protection claim lacked merit, noting that the federal judgment

        did not order the sentence to run concurrently with any other sentence. We have reviewed

        the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Gillins’ due process

        and equal protection claims on the merits. See generally 18 U.S.C. § 3584. Accordingly,

        we affirm. Gillins v. Hudgins, No. 5:21-cv-00093-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 7, 2021;

        Nov. 1, 2022).     We grant Gillins’ motion to seal the motion and accompanying

        supplemental authority filed in October 2023, and we deny his motion to compel. 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.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      2