Young v. United States ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6838
LARRY ARNOLD YOUNG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (1:88-cr-00112; 1:04-cv-1282)
Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Arnold Young, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Larry Arnold Young seeks to appeal from the district
court’s order construing his motion for modification of his
sentence as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying
relief because this was a successive motion for which authorization
had not been obtained. We find that the district court properly
construed the motion as one under § 2255. See Raines v. United
States, 423 F.2d 526, 528 & n.1 (4th Cir. 1970); see also
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2647 (2005) (where a motion is
“in substance a successive habeas petition,” it “should be treated
accordingly”).
Because Young’s motion was properly construed as a § 2255
motion, the order denying the motion is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (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 the
district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the
district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
- 2 -
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young
has not made the requisite showing. 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 the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -