US v. Bobby Gilyard, No. 11-6891 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Dismissed
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6891 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BOBBY MICHAEL GILYARD, a/k/a Big Mike, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:09-cr-00274-HMH-1; 8:11-cv-70091-HMH) Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 23, 2011 Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Michael Gilyard, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bobby Michael Gilyard seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the record Gilyard has not made the requisite showing. and conclude that Accordingly, we deny Gilyard s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal 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.
