United States v. Brian James Bronson , 548 F. App'x 99 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-7223
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BRIAN JAMES BRONSON, a/k/a Little B,
    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. (5:06-cr-00249-D-1; 5:12-cv-00467-D)
    Submitted:   December 17, 2013            Decided: December 19, 2013
    Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Brian James Bronson, Appellant Pro Se.   John Howarth Bennett,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North
    Carolina; William Ellis Boyle, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
    PUBLIC SAFETY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Michael Gordon James,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Brian    James      Bronson      seeks   to    appeal      the    district
    court’s     order       dismissing      as    time-barred       Bronson’s        second   28
    U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 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) (2006).
    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) (2006).                     When the district court denies
    relief     on    the    merits,     a   prisoner      satisfies     this    standard      by
    demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 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   Bronson      has      not    made   the     requisite    showing.          Bronson’s
    motion, which challenged the validity of his career offender
    *
    Alternatively, the district court ruled that Bronson’s
    motion was barred by the waiver-of-rights provision included in
    his plea agreement.
    2
    sentence, should have been deemed a successive § 2255 motion.
    And in the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court,
    the   district    court    lacked   jurisdiction   to       adjudicate    the
    timeliness of this successive § 2255 motion.                 See 28 U.S.C.
    § 2244(b)(3)     (2006).    Accordingly,   we   deny    a   certificate    of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.           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: 19-6034

Citation Numbers: 548 F. App'x 99

Judges: King, Gregory, Wynn

Filed Date: 12/19/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024