Miles v. Angelone , 115 F. App'x 166 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7043
RONALD MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 04-6024
RONALD MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 04-6275
RONALD MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-00-204-AM)
Submitted: June 30, 2004 Decided: December 17, 2004
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Miles seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions seeking reconsideration
of the court’s order denying Miles’s habeas corpus petition filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 (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 his
constitutional claims are 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, 336-38 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Miles has not made the requisite showing.
We therefore deny Miles’s motions for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeals.
Additionally, we construe Miles’s notices of appeal and
informal briefs on appeal as applications to file a second or
successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See United
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
- 3 -
U.S. , 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). In order to obtain
authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, 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
that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the
petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000).
Miles’s claims do not satisfy either of these conditions.
Therefore, we decline to authorize Miles to file a successive
§ 2254 petition. We deny Miles’s motions for judicial notice, for
summary judgment, for appointment of counsel, to take judicial
notice and amend, for an evidentiary hearing, for the court to take
independent action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), for judgment, to
review the record, for discovery, for production of documents, for
sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and all other pending motions.
We deny Miles’s motion for 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
- 4 -