US v. Robert Sill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999382371-2] Originating case number: 2:03-cr-00148-AWA-5. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999423140]. Mailed to: R. Sills. [14-6588]

Appeal: 14-6588

Doc: 15

Filed: 08/26/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6588

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.
Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:03-cr-00148-AWA-5)

Submitted:

August 21, 2014

Decided:

August 26, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Robert Edward Sills, Appellant Pro Se.
Randy Carl Stoker,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6588

Doc: 15

Filed: 08/26/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert
court’s

order

Edward

Sills

dismissing

as

seeks

to

appeal

successive

his

28

the

district

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012) motion and denying his request for a sentence reduction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012).

Insofar as Sills appeals the

court’s dismissal, the order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice

or

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

appealability.

28

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 Sills has not made the requisite showing.
deny

a

certificate

of

appealability

appeal.
2

and

Accordingly, we

dismiss

in

part

the

Appeal: 14-6588

Doc: 15

Filed: 08/26/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

Additionally, we construe Sills’ notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion.

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208

(4th Cir. 2003).

In order to obtain authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
either:
(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (2012).
of these criteria.

Sills’ claims do not satisfy either

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion.
Insofar

as

Sills

appeals

from

the

denial

of

his

request for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c), we affirm.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,
dismiss in part and affirm in part the appeal.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

3