United States v. Octavius Cline , 591 F. App'x 235 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-7404
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    OCTAVIUS S. CLINE, a/k/a Toby,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (6:02-cr-01358-HMH-12; 6:10-cv-70303-HMH)
    Submitted:   February 12, 2015            Decided:   February 18, 2015
    Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Octavius S. Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Octavius S. Cline seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order    denying        his       Fed.      R.       Civ.      P.        60(b)     motion           for
    reconsideration         of    the    district          court’s      order        dismissing          as
    successive 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 or underlying habeas
    application        states     a     debatable          claim     of       the     denial       of     a
    constitutional right.             Reid v. Angelone, 
    369 F.3d 363
    , 371 (4th
    Cir. 2004).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Cline has not made the requisite showing.                                  Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
    2
    Additionally, we construe Cline’s notice of appeal and
    informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
    § 2255 motion.      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 based on
    either:
    (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
    sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
    evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
    found the movant guilty of the offense; or
    (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
    to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
    that was previously unavailable.
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (h).        Cline’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 this   court   and    argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-7404

Citation Numbers: 591 F. App'x 235

Filed Date: 2/18/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023