Robert Bruce Gillins v. Warden R. Hudgins

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7352
ROBERT BRUCE GILLINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN R. HUDGINS,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY HAZELTON; DIRECTOR MICHAEL
CARVAJAL, Bureau of Prisons,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00093-JPB-JPM)
Submitted: February 23, 2024 Decided: March 27, 2024
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Bruce Gillins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Bruce Gillins, a federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
challenging the execution of his sentence, arguing that his federal and state sentences
should have run concurrently and that he was denied due process and equal protection with
regard to sentencing credit. The district court denied relief, finding that Gillins had failed
to exhaust administrative remedies and that, in any event, his due process claim failed on
the merits. We dismissed Gillins’ appeal of that order as interlocutory because the district
court had not addressed the equal protection claim. Gillins v. Hudgins, No. 22-6069, 2022
WL 1711685 (4th Cir. May 27, 2022). On remand, the district court concluded that Gillins
had not fully exhausted his claim, that he failed to show exhaustion should be excused, and
that, in any event, the equal protection claim lacked merit, noting that the federal judgment
did not order the sentence to run concurrently with any other sentence. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Gillins’ due process
and equal protection claims on the merits. See generally 18 U.S.C. § 3584. Accordingly,
we affirm. Gillins v. Hudgins, No. 5:21-cv-00093-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 7, 2021;
Nov. 1, 2022). We grant Gillins’ motion to seal the motion and accompanying
supplemental authority filed in October 2023, and we deny his motion to compel. 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.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --