United States v. Eric Van Buren ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7685
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC MARTIN VAN BUREN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:00-cr-00066-NKM-1; 3:12-cv-80620-NKM)
Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Martin Van Buren, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Martin Van Buren seeks to appeal the district
court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on
that basis. The order 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 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 Van Buren has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny Van Buren’s motion for a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal.
2
Additionally, we construe Van Buren’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). Van Buren’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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3