United States v. Graham , 81 F. App'x 472 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 03-6949
    HERBERT GRAHAM,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.
    (CR-95-69-H, CA-97-147-7-H)
    Submitted: October 1, 2003
    Decided: December 1, 2003
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Herbert Graham, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                      UNITED STATES v. GRAHAM
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Herbert Graham appeals the district court’s order denying his "Mo-
    tion for Relief from Judgment under Civil Rule 60(b) and for leave
    to amend the Pleadings Under the Provisions of Civil Rule 15(c)(2)
    Relation Back Authority." Graham’s motion seeks to reopen the judg-
    ment dismissing his first 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion as untimely filed
    under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
    Graham has requested a certificate of appealability from the court in
    his notice of appeal.
    Graham may not appeal from the denial of relief in a habeas pro-
    ceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeala-
    bility. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). Graham may satisfy this
    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that
    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive proce-
    dural rulings by the district court are debatable or wrong. See Miller-
    El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , ___, 
    123 S. Ct. 1029
    , 1039-40 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    534 U.S. 941
     (2001).
    We have reviewed the record and determine that Graham’s self-
    styled Motion under Rules 60 and 15 is, in substance, a second habeas
    corpus motion attacking his conviction and sentence under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000). See United States v. Winestock, 
    340 F.3d 200
    , 206 (4th
    Cir. 2003). We therefore treat Graham’s notice of appeal and appel-
    late brief as a request for authorization from this court to file a second
    habeas corpus motion. See 
    id. at 208
    .
    This court may authorize a second or successive § 2255 motion
    only if the applicant can show that his claims are based on (1) a new
    rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral
    review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (2)
    newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the
    evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and
    convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found
    him guilty of the offense. See 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 2244
    (b)(2), 2255. The
    applicant bears the burden of making a prima facie showing of these
    UNITED STATES v. GRAHAM                         3
    requirements in his application. See In re Fowlkes, 
    326 F.3d 542
    , 543
    (4th Cir. 2003). In the absence of pre-filing authorization, the district
    court is without jurisdiction to entertain the motion. Evans v. Smith,
    
    220 F.3d 306
    , 325 (4th Cir. 2000). After reviewing Graham’s motion
    and the record in this matter, we conclude that it does meet the appli-
    cable standard.
    We therefore deny Graham’s request for a certificate of appeala-
    bility and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Graham’s implied
    request for authorization to file a second or successive habeas corpus
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-6949

Citation Numbers: 81 F. App'x 472

Judges: Luttig, Motz, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/1/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024