US v. Robert Sills, No. 08-7230 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7230 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT EDWARD SILLS, a/k/a Bobby, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00148-JBF-5; 2:06-cv-00696-JBF) Submitted: October 20, 2008 Decided: November 13, 2008 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Edward Sills, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert court s order Edward accepting Sills the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2000). demonstrating that A 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). We have independently reviewed the conclude Sills has not made the requisite showing. record and Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Sills motion to consolidate his case with another of his appeals and to place the case in abeyance and stay the mandate pending Information Act. facts and legal information requested under the Freedom of We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the 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.
