United States v. Cashwell , 83 F. App'x 574 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 03-7069
    GERALD LEE CASHWELL,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
    (CR-94-454-PJM, CA-00-1732-PJM)
    Submitted: November 19, 2003
    Decided: December 31, 2003
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed and vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam
    opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Gerald Lee Cashwell, Appellant Pro Se. Jan Paul Miller, Deborah A.
    Johnston, Daphene Rose McFerren, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                     UNITED STATES v. CASHWELL
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Gerald Lee Cashwell, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district
    court’s orders denying his motion for 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) relief
    and his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of that order. We deny
    the certificate of appealability and dismiss Cashwell’s appeal of the
    denial of his § 2255 motion. We also find that Cashwell’s Rule 60(b)
    motion is properly characterized as an attempt to file a successive
    § 2255 motion. We deny Cashwell authorization to file a successive
    § 2255 motion, and, because the district court lacked jurisdiction to
    enter its order, we vacate the order of the district court and remand
    with instructions to dismiss.
    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 pro-
    ceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeala-
    bility. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability
    will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a consti-
    tutional 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. 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 Cashwell has
    not satisfied either standard.
    Cashwell’s attempted motion for reconsideration, brought pursuant
    to Rule 60(b), is best characterized as an attempt to file a successive
    § 2255 motion. A prisoner wishing to file a successive § 2255 motion
    must first gain authorization from the circuit court. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (b)(3)(2000). Without such authorization, the district court
    lacks jurisdiction to hear the claims. United States v. Winestock, 
    340 F.3d 200
     (4th Cir. 2003). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction
    over the claim, we must construe Cashwell’s notice of appeal and
    informal brief on appeal as an application to file a successive § 2255
    motion. In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255
    motion, a movant must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule
    of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the
    UNITED STATES v. CASHWELL                       3
    Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered
    evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable factfinder would
    have found the movant guilty. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (b)(2) (2000). Cash-
    well does not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline
    to authorize Cashwell to file a successive § 2255 motion. We also
    vacate the order of the district court and remand with instructions to
    dismiss the motion. Winestock, 
    340 F.3d at 208
    .
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal. We also deny Cashwell authorization to file a successive
    § 2255 motion, vacate the order of the district court and remand with
    instructions to dismiss. 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; VACATED AND REMANDED;
    AUTHORIZATION DENIED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-7069

Citation Numbers: 83 F. App'x 574

Judges: Williams, Michael, Motz

Filed Date: 12/31/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024