United States v. McClinton , 117 F. App'x 287 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7556
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ARTHUR JAMES MCCLINTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-93-28, CA-04-404-3-MU)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2004         Decided:     December 28, 2004
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Arthur James McClinton, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Arthur James McClinton, a federal prisoner, seeks to
    appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for
    reduction of sentence, construed as a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000)
    motion.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge     issues   a    certificate    of     appealability.        
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 
    369 F.3d 363
    , 368-69,
    374 n.7 (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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that
    any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
    debatable or wrong.        See 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 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that McClinton has not made the
    requisite    showing.       Accordingly,      we   deny   a     certificate     of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.
    Additionally, we construe McClinton’s notice of appeal
    and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
    successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 
    340 F.3d 200
    , 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    124 S. Ct. 496
     (2003).                In order
    to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a
    - 2 -
    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 that would be sufficient to establish by clear
    and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
    found the movant guilty of the offense.            
    28 U.S.C. §§ 2244
    (b)(2),
    2255 (2000).      McClinton’s claim does not satisfy either of these
    conditions.    Therefore, we decline to authorize McClinton 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7556

Citation Numbers: 117 F. App'x 287

Judges: Michael, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/28/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024