US v. Bernard Gibson, Sr., No. 13-7595 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7595 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BERNARD GIBSON, SR., a/k/a Bernard Willis, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:94-cr-00454-PJM-2; 8:13-cv-01825-PJM) Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Chan Park, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bernard Gibson, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his Motion for Relief in the Interest of Justice time) as Under a Section successive 2255(f)(3) and of Title unauthorized 28 habeas (second-inmotion, denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. and The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gibson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3