Vincent Williams v. Harold Clarke , 546 F. App'x 291 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7245
VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-7246
VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00417-REP; 3:12-cv-00305-REP)
Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 22, 2013
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy,
Lara Kate Jacobs Todd, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
Regarding the order denying Williams’ initial § 2254
petition, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
3
Williams also seeks to appeal the district court’s
order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and dismissing it on that
basis. This order is also not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Reid, 369 F.3d at 369. We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Williams’ notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2254 petition. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a
successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based
on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously
unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on
collateral review; or (2) 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 petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(2) (2006). Williams’ claims do not satisfy either of
these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2254 petition.
4
We dispense with oral argument and deny Williams’
motion to sanction state attorney general’s office because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
5