USCA4 Appeal: 23-6887 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6887

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND EDWARD GILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:86-cr-00231-GLR-1)

Submitted: November 16, 2023 Decided: November 22, 2023

Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Edward Gill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6887 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Edward Gill, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing several motions filed in the underlying criminal case. In his motions, Gill

asserted that he was entitled to coram nobis relief from his prior federal convictions. The

district court determined that Gill was not entitled to coram nobis relief, construed the vast

majority of Gill’s motions as successive

motions and dismissed the

motions as unauthorized, and denied Gill’s remaining motions. We dismiss in part and

affirm in part.

To the extent Gill seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his motions as

successive and unauthorized § 2255 motions, we conclude that he has failed to make the

requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B); Miller–

El v. Cockrell,

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); United States v. Winestock,

(4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part.

To the extent that Gill appeals the district court’s denial of his alternate claims for

relief, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

the remainder of the district court’s order. United States v. Gill, No. 1:86-cr-00231-GLR-

1 (D. Md. May 4, 2023). 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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART

2