United States v. McKenzie , 145 F. App'x 437 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6860
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
COURTNEY SOLOMON MCKENZIE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-92-228; CA-97-515)
Submitted: October 18, 2005 Decided: October 21, 2005
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Courtney Solomon McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Courtney Solomon McKenzie seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
§ 2255 proceeding 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 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 that his
constitutional claims are 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 McKenzie has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe McKenzie’s notice of appeal and
informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive motion under § 2255. See 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
- 2 -
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. § 2255. McKenzie’s claims do
not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to
authorize 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 -