United States v. Reynolds , 259 F. App'x 556 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7375
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIE REYNOLDS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    District Judge. (6:90-cr-00054; 1:06-cv-00084)
    Submitted:   December 13, 2007         Decided:     December 21, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Willie Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Willie Reynolds seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, treating
    his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(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.      See 
    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. 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 Reynolds has not made the requisite
    showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
    Additionally, we construe Reynolds’ notice of appeal and
    informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
    motion under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    .      See United States v. Winestock, 
    340 F.3d 200
    , 208 (4th Cir. 2003).      In order to obtain authorization to
    - 2 -
    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, 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.          See 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 2244
    (b)(2), 2255
    (2000).   Reynolds’ 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: 07-7375

Citation Numbers: 259 F. App'x 556

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/21/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024