United States v. Wesley , 259 F. App'x 552 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7457
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOHNNY LEE WESLEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
    Senior District Judge. (1:97-cr-00382-HCM-2)
    Submitted:   December 13, 2007         Decided:     December 21, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Johnny Lee Wesley, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Johnny Lee Wesley seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b)
    motion    as    a   successive   
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
       (2000)   motion,   and
    dismissing it on that basis.           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 Wesley has not
    made the requisite showing.           Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.
    Additionally, we construe Wesley’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).   Wesley’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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7457

Citation Numbers: 259 F. App'x 552

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/21/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024