United States v. Haynes , 353 F. App'x 844 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7606
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIS MARK HAYNES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:98-cr-00520-PJM-1; 8:02-cv-03850-PJM)
Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willis Mark Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willis Mark Haynes seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking
reconsideration of his the order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,
369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude Haynes has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Haynes’ notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. 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) newly discovered
evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that
would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable
factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable,
made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral
review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2009). Haynes’
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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3