US v. Robert Sills

Filing 920081113

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7230 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT EDWARD SILLS, a/k/a Bobby,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Decided: November 13, 2008 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Sills the seeks to appeal of the the district magistrate accepting recommendation 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. by 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this find standard demonstrating reasonable jurists 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 record and conclude Sills has not made the requisite showing. 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 requested under the Freedom of Information Act. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately presented in the 2 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?