Mason v. Ozmint ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8050
IRVIN VERNON MASON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JON OZMINT, Director; WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (3:09-cv-00841-MBS)
Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Irvin Vernon Mason, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Irvin Vernon Mason seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge, construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) motion as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and dismissing it
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) (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 that regardless of whether Mason’s petition
should have been treated as a § 2241 or § 2254 petition, the
claim he sought to raise was successive, and is thus precluded
by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a) (2006). Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
2
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