David Lamont Gibson v. Timothy Stewart

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-03304-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999941003]. Mailed to: David Lamont Gibson FCI CUMBERLAND FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1000 Cumberland, MD 21501-0000. [16-6613]

Appeal: 16-6613

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6613

DAVID LAMONT GIBSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TIMOTHY STEWART, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:15-cv-03304-DKC)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lamont Gibson, Appellant Pro Se.
Jakarra Jenise Jones,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6613

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David

Lamont

Gibson,

a

District

of

Columbia

prisoner

incarcerated in Maryland, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

§

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 petition 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.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 16-6613

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 10/04/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3