United States v. Anthony Trappier

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 20, 2023
• Docket: 22-6882
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6882 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6882

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY GENE TRAPPIER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:09-cr-00340-TLW-1; 4:21-cv-02513-TLW)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Gene Trappier, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6882 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Gene Trappier seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as

successive and unauthorized Trappier’s motions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. We affirm in part and deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss in

part.

The district court’s determination that Trappier’s § 2255 motion was successive and

unauthorized is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v.

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Trappier has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal in part.

We agree with the district court that Trappier’s Rule 60 motions amounted to

successive § 2255 motions for which this court did not grant prefiling authorization as

required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244. And, to the extent that Trappier’s Rule 60 motions attacked

the integrity of his habeas proceedings, we agree with the district court that the motions

were untimely and, in any event, meritless. We therefore affirm those holdings. See, e.g.,

United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that this court “need

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6882 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

not issue a [certificate of appealability] before determining whether the district court erred

in dismissing [a defendant’s] purported Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive

habeas petition”).

Additionally, we construe Trappier’s notice of appeal and appellate brief as a motion

to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), abrogated in part on other grounds by McRae, 793 F.3d 392. In

order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert

claims based on either: (1) a new, previously unavailable rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered

evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient

to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have

found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Because Trappier’s claims

do not satisfy either of these criteria, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the appeal in part and deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss in part. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART