UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7230
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. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (2:03-cr-00148-JBF-5; 2:06-cv-00696-JBF)
Submitted: October 20, 2008 Decided: November 13, 2008
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Edward Sills, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Edward Sills seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.
The order is 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 Sills has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We also deny Sills’ motion to consolidate his case with another
of his appeals and to place the case in abeyance and stay the
mandate pending information requested under the Freedom of
Information Act. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3