US v. Robert Sills

Filing 920081113

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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