United States v. Williamson , 209 F. App'x 359 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7558
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ARTHUR EDWARD WILLIAMSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (8:02-cr-00324-HMH; 8:05-cv-01494-HMH)
Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 22, 2006
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s oral order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion and motions for access to court reporter’s records,
discovery, and for appointment of counsel in his underlying 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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) (2000). 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 Williamson has
not made the requisite showing as his action is a successive § 2255
motion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Williamson’s notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340
- 2 -
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) a new rule of constitutional law, previously
unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on
collateral review; or (2) 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. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255
(2000). Williamson’s 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 -