United States of America v. Robert James Gadsen, a/k/a Robert James, a/k/a Axe-Head

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6055
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT JAMES GADSEN, a/k/a Robert James, a/k/a Axe-Head,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:97-cr-00274-PMD-1; 2:16-
cv-02043-PMD)
Submitted: August 3, 2017 Decided: August 25, 2017
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emily Deck Harrill, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert James Gadsen seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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.” 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
(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 Gadsen has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --