United States v. Luther Satterfield , 562 F. App'x 163 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7728
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUTHER EARL SATTERFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:04-cr-00173-D-1; 5:09-cv-00276-D)
Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014
Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Luther Earl Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se. William E. H.
Creech, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Barbara Dickerson
Kocher, Assistant United States Attorney Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luther Earl Satterfield seeks to appeal the district
court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on
that basis, and denying his motion for a sentence reduction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). The portion of the order
denying the Rule 60(b) motion 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 Satterfield has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
2
the portion of the appeal challenging the denial of the Rule
60(b) motion.
Additionally, we construe Satterfield’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) (2012). Satterfield’s claims do not satisfy
either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion.
We have reviewed the record regarding Satterfield’s
§ 3582(c)(2) motion and affirm the court’s order denying the
motion based on the reasoning of the district court. United
States v. Satterfield, Nos. 5:04-cr-00173-D-1; 5:09-cv-00276-D
(E.D.N.C. Oct. 3, 2013). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal as to the Rule 60(b) motion
and affirm the remainder of the order denying relief on the
§ 3582(c) motion. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4