United States v. Joseph McConnell , 546 F. App'x 295 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7532
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH TROY MCCONNELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-15; 3:10-cv-70314-CMC)
Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Troy McConnell, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Mark C.
Moore, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Troy McConnell seeks to appeal the district
court’s order treating his motion to reopen the criminal
judgment against him as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2013) motion, and dismissing it because McConnell failed
to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. 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 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 McConnell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2
Additionally, McConnell seeks authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion in his informal brief. In order to
obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion,
however, 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.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2013). McConnell’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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3