US v. Kevin Gedeon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998882689-2] Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00030-JPB-JES-2,3:11-cv-00069-JPB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998978520]. Mailed to: Kevin Gedeon. [12-6959]

Appeal: 12-6959

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/09/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6959

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEVIN GEDEON, a/k/a Cash,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge.
(3:09-cr-00030-JPB-JES-2; 3:11-cv-00069JPB)

Submitted:

September 18, 2012

Decided:

November 9, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Gedeon, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Martinsburg,
West
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6959

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/09/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kevin

Gedeon

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying

relief

motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge

issues

on

a

his

absent

U.S.C.A.

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

28

“a

of

2255

(West

Supp.

appealability.

28

2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

§

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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 motion 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 Gedeon has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Gedeon’s motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2

Appeal: 12-6959

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/09/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3