US v. Robert Gadsen, No. 09-7080 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7080 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ROBERT JAMES GADSEN, a/k/a Axe-Head, a/k/a Robert James, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:97-cr-00274-PMD-1) Submitted: November 10, 2009 Decided: December 10, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert James Gadsen, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert James Gadsen seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his petition for a writ of error audita querela as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. appealable unless a circuit justice certificate of appealability. or The order is not judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 687 (4th Cir. 2004); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 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 Gadsen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, and dismiss the appeal. we deny a certificate of appealability We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 2 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
