United States v. Louis Bryant ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7859
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LOUIS ANTONIO BRYANT, a/k/a Tinio, a/k/a Black, a/k/a B
Stacks,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00047-NKM-RSB-1; 3:13-cv-80668-
NKM)
Submitted: February 11, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014
Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Louis Antonio Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Louis Antonio Bryant seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration, denying as
moot his motion to compel and treating his “Addendum to § 2255”
as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing
it for lack of authorization from this court.
We affirm that part of the district court’s order
denying reconsideration and denying as moot the motion to compel
on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
Bryant, Nos. 3:04-cr-00047-NKM-RSB-1; 3:13-cv-80668-NKM (W.D.
Va. Oct. 29, 2013).
That part of the district court’s order denying the
“Addendum to § 2255” as a second or successive § 2255 motion is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
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) (2012). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
2
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Bryant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Bryant’s notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 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) 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; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (2012). Bryant’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
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4