United States v. Ricardo Arce , 453 F. App'x 353 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6845
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICARDO ARCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00111-BO-1; 5:10-cv-00078-BO)
Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricardo Arce, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricardo Arce seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. * The order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
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) (2006). 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 Arce has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.
*
Because the Rule 60(b) motion directly attacked Arce’s sentence, it
was, in essence, an unauthorized and successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2011) motion over which the district court lacked jurisdiction. See
United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003).
Additionally, we construe Arce’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. In order to obtain
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner
must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered
evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that
would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable
factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable,
made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral
review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2011). Arce’s claims
do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED