Glass v. Director, Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7761
KEVIN L. GLASS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CA-05-460-REP)
Submitted: May 10, 2006 Decided: May 25, 2006
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin L. Glass, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kevin L. Glass seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his petition as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (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 any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Glass has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss
the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Glass’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. United States v. Winestock, 340
F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to
file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims
- 2 -
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, not previously
discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the
petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000).
Glass’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore,
we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.
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 -