United States v. Carroll

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6163
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID CARROLL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-519; CA-04-1279-1)
Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: August 31, 2005
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Carroll, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Carroll seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
dismissing as successive and untimely his motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000), and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment
filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are 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 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 Carroll
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Carroll’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. 2003). We conclude that Carroll has not
satisfied the applicable standards necessary to obtain
- 2 -
authorization under the statute. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; In re Williams,
330 F.3d 277, 281-82 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we decline to
authorize Carroll 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 -