United States v. White , 155 F. App'x 691 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7347
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MARVIN ANTONIO WHITE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CR-97-63; CA-00-909-2)
    Submitted:   November 22, 2005            Decided:   December 7, 2005
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Marvin Antonio White, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Marvin Antonio White, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed
    pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which the district court
    construed as a successive motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000), and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.               The order is not
    appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
    of appealability. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). 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 the district court’s assessment of his
    constitutional     claims    is   debatable      or   wrong    and   that    any
    dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are
    debatable or wrong.         See 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 White has not made the
    requisite     showing.      Accordingly,    we    deny   a     certificate   of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.
    Additionally, we construe White’s notice of appeal and
    informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
    successive § 2255 motion. See 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)   a   new   rule   of   constitutional   law,    previously
    unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on
    collateral review; or (2) 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. 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 2244
    (b)(2), 2255 (2000). White’s claim does
    not satisfy either of these conditions.       Therefore, we decline to
    authorize White 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-7347

Citation Numbers: 155 F. App'x 691

Filed Date: 12/7/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014