United States v. Delvaz Saunders , 583 F. App'x 69 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6133
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DELVAZ SAUNDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00556-JFM-1; 1:13-cv-02604-JFM)
Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014
Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Delvaz Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Marie Celeste, Ayn
Brigoli Ducao, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Delvaz Saunders 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. 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 Saunders has not made the requisite showing. The district
court lacked jurisdiction to consider Saunders’ motion to vacate
2
because it was a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion. ∗ In
the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court, the
district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255
motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Accordingly, we
deny 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
∗
In its memorandum denying relief on Saunders’ first § 2255
motion, the district court noted its intent to enter an amended
judgment reducing Saunders’ term of supervised release from the
ten-year term imposed at sentencing to the five-year term
stipulated in the plea agreement. However, the district court’s
docket does not reflect that it has entered an amended judgment
reducing Saunders’ term of supervised release, and in fact, a
subsequent amended judgment indicates a supervised release term
of ten years.
3