Court Opinion

ID: 9902177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-23 22:00:27.280554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:47.484465
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6887      Doc: 7        Filed: 11/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6887

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RAYMOND EDWARD GILL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:86-cr-00231-GLR-1)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 22, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Raymond Edward Gill, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6887      Doc: 7         Filed: 11/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Raymond Edward Gill, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

        dismissing several motions filed in the underlying criminal case. In his motions, Gill

        asserted that he was entitled to coram nobis relief from his prior federal convictions. The

        district court determined that Gill was not entitled to coram nobis relief, construed the vast

        majority of Gill’s motions as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and dismissed the

        motions as unauthorized, and denied Gill’s remaining motions. We dismiss in part and

        affirm in part.

               To the extent Gill seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his motions as

        successive and unauthorized § 2255 motions, we conclude that he has failed to make the

        requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); Miller–

        El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85

        (2000); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205-06 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly,

        we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part.

               To the extent that Gill appeals the district court’s denial of his alternate claims for

        relief, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

        the remainder of the district court’s order. United States v. Gill, No. 1:86-cr-00231-GLR-

        1 (D. Md. May 4, 2023). 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 IN PART,
                                                                               AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                      2