The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6919
LEONARD BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 05-6984
LEONARD BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE JOHNSON, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CA-02-50; CA-05-596)
Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: October 3, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leonard Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Leonard Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
dismissing as successive his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reopen
the court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petition, and dismissing as successive a subsequently filed § 2254
petition. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (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 both that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Brown
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s
motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Brown’s notices of appeal and
informal briefs 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
- 3 -
file a successive § 2254 petition, 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, 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).
Brown’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
- 4 -