Certiorari dismissed, November 3, 2008
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6035
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BERNARD GIBSON, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:94-
cr-00454-PJM-2; 8:05-cv-01437-PJM)
Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 10, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Gibson, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion to amend his motion filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and the court’s order denying his motion
to reconsider. The district court found that there was no pending
§ 2255 motion to amend and that, in any event, Gibson’s motions
were tantamount to a successive § 2255 motion, for which Gibson had
not obtained authorization to file. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).
A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find 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 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
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -