Carlos Woods v. United States ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6561
CARLOS WOODS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:12-cv-00649-WDQ)
Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Carlos Woods, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Woods filed a petition for a writ of audita
querela in the district court, pursuant to the All Writs Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006), seeking to challenge his convictions on
two counts of possession with the intent to distribute
controlled substances. The district court treated the petition
as both a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and a
petition for a writ of audita querela and issued an order
dismissing the petition on the basis that the § 2255 motion was
successive and Woods had not demonstrated entitlement to the
extraordinary remedy of a writ of audita querela. Woods now
appeals. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
The portion of the district court’s order treating
Woods’ petition as a successive § 2255 motion and dismissing it
on that basis is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
2
(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Woods has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
this portion of the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Woods’ notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. 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 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). Woods’ claims do not satisfy either of these
criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive
§ 2255 motion.
3
With respect to the portion of the district court’s
order denying relief on the merits on Woods’ petition for a writ
of audita querela, we confine our review on appeal to the issues
raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Because Woods’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition, Woods has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s
judgment. 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4