Mario Sibug v. Gregg Hershberger, No. 13-7172 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7172 MARIO SERRANO SIBUG, Petitioner Appellant, v. GREGG L. HERSHBERGER, Warden; DOUGLAS F. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, GANSLER; THE Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01628-CCB) Submitted: January 17, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Serrano Sibug, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mario Serrano Sibug seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive. The order is not a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). appealable unless A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sibug has not made the requisite showing. deny Sibug s certificate dispense of with motion for appointment appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 of the Accordingly, we counsel, the deny appeal. facts and a We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
