United States v. Hughes , 144 F. App'x 991 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6748
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN ERIC HUGHES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (CR-00-4; CA-05-278-3)
Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 7, 2005
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Eric Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Eric Hughes, 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 Hughes
attempted to bring under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. 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 Hughes has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
Additionally, we construe Hughes’ 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). Hughes’
claim does not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we
decline to authorize Hughes to file a successive § 2255 motion.
Hughes’ motions for appointment of counsel and for an
evidentiary hearing are denied. 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 -