United States v. White , 78 F. App'x 308 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 03-6635
    MARVIN ANTONIO WHITE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge.
    (CR-97-63, CA-00-909-2)
    Submitted: August 19, 2003
    Decided: October 22, 2003
    Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Marvin Antonio White, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                      UNITED STATES v. WHITE
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Marvin Antonio White, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
    court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order deny-
    ing relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000). Because
    White’s motion directly attacked his conviction and sentence rather
    than any alleged defect in the collateral review process, it amounted
    to a successive § 2255 motion that the district court lacked jurisdic-
    tion to consider. See United States v. Winestock, ___ F.3d ___, 
    2003 WL 1949822
    , at *6 (4th Cir. Apr. 25, 2003). In accordance with
    Winestock, we construe White’s notice of appeal and informal brief
    on appeal as an application to file a successive § 2255 motion. See id.
    at *7. We have reviewed the record and find that White fails to meet
    the requirements for authorization to file such a successive motion.
    In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion,
    a movant must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of consti-
    tutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme
    Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence
    sufficient to establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found
    the movant guilty. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (b)(2) (2000). White does not
    satisfy either of these conditions. Accordingly, we affirm the order of
    the district court and deny White’s implicit application for leave to
    file a second § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because
    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
    als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
    cess.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-6635

Citation Numbers: 78 F. App'x 308

Judges: Gregory, King, Luttig, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 10/22/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023