United States v. Timnah Rudisill ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6405
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMNAH K. RUDISILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:01-cr-00048-MR-9; 1:05-cv-00212-MR)
Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: June 26, 2013
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timnah K. Rudisill, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Jill
Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timnah K. Rudisill seeks to appeal the district
court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a
successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion, and
dismissing it on that basis. 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 Rudisill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Rudisill’s notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or
2
successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
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) 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). Rudisill’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