Bernard Gibson, Jr. v. Eric Wilson, No. 14-7093 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7093 BERNARD GIBSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIC D. WILSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00454-JCC-TRJ) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014 Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Gibson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bernard court’s order Gibson, denying Jr., relief seeks on to his 28 appeal the U.S.C. district § 2241 (2012) petition, which the court correctly treated as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, as well as Gibson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice its order denying The orders are not or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or (2012). a When prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack the district satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, court standard find by U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 denies 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 Gibson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a 2 certificate dispense of with contentions are appealability, and oral because argument adequately dismiss presented in the the the appeal. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3