United States v. Lawton , 84 F. App'x 294 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7290
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    AVERY MYRON LAWTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (CR-96-153)
    Submitted:   November 24, 2003         Decided:     December 23, 2003
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Avery Myron Lawton, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Federal inmate Avery Myron Lawton appeals the district court’s
    order dismissing a successive motion to vacate his conviction for
    lack of certification from this court as required in 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    .    The district court correctly held that “a successive
    application   may   not   be   filed   in   the   district    court    without
    authorization from the . . . court of appeals.”              In re Williams,
    
    330 F.3d 277
    , 279 (4th Cir. 2003) (regarding a successive 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) habeas corpus petition, 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
     (2000)).
    Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the motion.
    In accordance with our decision in United States v. Winestock,
    
    340 F.3d 200
    , 208 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied,                U.S.      , 
    72 U.S.L.W. 3309
     (U.S. Nov. 3, 2003) (No. 03-6548), we construe
    Lawton’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an
    application to file a successive § 2255 motion.          Id. at 208.
    To obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a
    movant 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
    factfinder would have found the movant guilty.                See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (b)(2) (2000).       Lawton does not satisfy either of these
    conditions.   Accordingly, we decline to authorize a second § 2255
    motion. We affirm the order of the district court and deny Lawton’s
    2
    implicit application for leave to file a second § 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.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-7290

Citation Numbers: 84 F. App'x 294

Judges: Luttig, Traxler, Gregory

Filed Date: 12/23/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024