United States v. Williams ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6708
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-00-8; CA-02-16-4)
Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 7, 2005
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Williams, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motion to vacate
judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), which Williams
attempted to bring under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000). An appeal may not be taken
from the district court’s order unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims
addressed by a district court 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 both 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). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Williams’ notice of appeal and
informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
- 2 -
200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to 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 sufficient to
establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the
movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Williams’
claim does not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we
decline to authorize Williams 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 -