United States v. Williamson , 224 F. App'x 308 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6069
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ARTHUR EDWARD WILLIAMSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (8:02-cr-00324-HMH)
Submitted: April 19, 2007 Decided: April 25, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s oral order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3)
motion filed in his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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)
(2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong
and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is
likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Williamson has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williamson’s motion for a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Williamson’s notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340
F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
- 2 -
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
movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255
(2000). Williamson’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
- 3 -