Cameron v. Stansberry , 128 F. App'x 323 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-8002
    ANTHONY WAYNE CAMERON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Low Security
    Correctional Institution,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Malcolm J. Howard,
    District Judge. (CA-04-628)
    Submitted:   April 28, 2005                    Decided:   May 5, 2005
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Anthony Wayne Cameron, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony    Wayne    Cameron   seeks     to   appeal   the   district
    court’s order dismissing his petition he labeled as filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (2000).    We have reviewed the record and conclude for
    the reasons stated by the district court that Cameron’s claims
    should be asserted under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).                      Cameron,
    however, has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
    constitutional right as to the district court’s dismissal.                   See
    Cameron v. Stansberry, No. CA-04-628 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2004).
    Accordingly, we deny Cameron a certificate of appealability, deny
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.               See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c) (2000).
    To   the   extent    that   Cameron’s    notice    of   appeal   and
    appellate brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to
    file a successive 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion, we deny such
    authorization.    See United States v. Winestock, 
    340 F.3d 200
    , 208
    (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    124 S. Ct. 496
     (2003).             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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-8002

Citation Numbers: 128 F. App'x 323

Judges: Duncan, King, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 5/5/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023