United States v. Jones ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6183
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EMORY CLASH JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:97-
cr-00309-BEL-3; 1:05-cv-03481-JFM)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 31, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emory Clash Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Emory Clash Jones, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order construing his motion filed pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and
dismissing the motion as successive. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,
369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 or wrong 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 Jones
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Jones’ notice of appeal and
informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain
- 2 -
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
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), 2255
(2000). Jones’ claims do not satisfy either of these conditions.
We therefore 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -