The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8115
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CRAIG LAMONT BROWN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:05-cr-00017-WDK-TEM; 2:07-cv-00156-WDK)
Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 26, 2009
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig Lamont Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Craig Lamont Brown seeks to appeal two orders filed in
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action denying his motions for
relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In the first order, the
district court found that all but one of his claims were
successive. In the second order, the court denied his remaining
claim under Rule 60(b) itself. 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 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 Brown has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2
Additionally, to the extent that Brown seeks to raise
successive claims, we construe his notice of appeal and informal
brief as an application to file a second or successive motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United 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,
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 movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Brown’s claims do not satisfy
either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization 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