United States v. Pena , 260 F. App'x 567 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7411
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DOMINGO NOLBERTO PENA,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (1:98-cr-00132-JCC; 1:00-cv-01693)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2007         Decided:     December 28, 2007
    Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Domingo Nolberto Pena, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Domingo    Nolberto   Pena   seeks     to    appeal     the    district
    court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion as a
    successive 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion, and dismissing it on
    that   basis,   and   a   subsequent    order   denying      his    motion      for
    reconsideration.      The orders are 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 Pena has not
    made the requisite showing.      Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.
    Additionally, we construe Pena’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 F.3d 200
    , 208 (4th Cir. 2003).     In order to obtain authorization to
    - 2 -
    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).     Pena’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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7411

Citation Numbers: 260 F. App'x 567

Judges: Michael, King, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/28/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024