United States v. Lawton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7290
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AVERY MYRON LAWTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-96-153)
Submitted: November 24, 2003 Decided: December 23, 2003
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Avery Myron Lawton, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Federal inmate Avery Myron Lawton appeals the district court’s
order dismissing a successive motion to vacate his conviction for
lack of certification from this court as required in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. The district court correctly held that “a successive
application may not be filed in the district court without
authorization from the . . . court of appeals.” In re Williams,
330 F.3d 277, 279 (4th Cir. 2003) (regarding a successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000) habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000)).
Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the motion.
In accordance with our decision in United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, U.S. , 72
U.S.L.W. 3309 (U.S. Nov. 3, 2003) (No. 03-6548), we construe
Lawton’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an
application to file a successive § 2255 motion. Id. at 208.
To obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a
movant 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
factfinder would have found the movant guilty. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(2) (2000). Lawton does not satisfy either of these
conditions. Accordingly, we decline to authorize a second § 2255
motion. We affirm the order of the district court and deny Lawton’s
2
implicit application for leave to file a second § 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.
AFFIRMED
3