United States v. House

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7527
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT MARSHALL HOUSE, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CR-96-174)
Submitted: June 13, 2005 Decided: July 5, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Marshall House, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas B. Murphy,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Marshall House, Sr., a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order summarily denying his motion for
relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and
Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), following the
district court’s denial of House’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2000); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (4th Cir. 2004); Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (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 (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 House has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe House’s notice of appeal and
informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See United
- 2 -
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) a new rule of
constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the
Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly
discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact
finder would have found the movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000). House’s claims do not satisfy either of these conditions.
Therefore, we decline to authorize 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 -