United States v. Cameron

416 F. App'x 317

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7325

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TAIWAN DAVIDSON CAMERON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00343-JCC-1; 1:07-CV-01268-JCC)

Submitted: March 15, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Taiwan Davidson Cameron, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew John Ewalt, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Taiwan Davidson Cameron seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge, treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion, and dismissing it

on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 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) (2006). When the district court

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

When 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. Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Cameron has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.

2 Additionally, we construe Cameron’s notice of appeal

and informal brief as an application to file a second or

successive § 2255 motion. 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) 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; or (2) a new rule of

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by

the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2010). Cameron’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