US v. Robert Gibson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:06-cr-00146-RGD-TEM-2,4:14-cv-00150-RGD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999607522]. Mailed to: R. Gibson. [15-6440]

Appeal: 15-6440

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6440

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT RONALD GIBSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:06-cr-00146-RGD-TEM-2; 4:14-cv-00150-RGD)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Ronald Gibson, Appellant Pro Se.
Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6440

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert Ronald Gibson seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion
successive

and

denying

reconsideration.

The

orders

are

as
not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

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 (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 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
Gibson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2

Appeal: 15-6440

Doc: 11

adequately

Filed: 06/23/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3