US v. Stanley Gill, No. 08-7688 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7688 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. STANLEY O NEAL GILL, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00020-F-1; 5:07-cv-00044-F) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley O Neal Gill, Appellant Pro Se. Winnie Jordan Reaves, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stanley court s orders (West Supp. amend under O Neal denying 2008) Fed. R. a and of to on his Civ. denying P. appeal 28 his the district U.S.C.A. motion 59(e). The justice circuit certificate of appealability. certificate seeks relief motion unless appealable Gill or to orders alter or are not issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A appealability will not judge § 2255 issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2006). demonstrating A that prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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). conclude that Accordingly, we We have independently reviewed the record and Gill deny has not Gill s made motion appealability and dismiss the appeal. the for requisite a showing. certificate of 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.