United States v. Dawson

432 F. App'x 254

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 1, 2011
• Docket: 11-6172
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6172

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RONALD DAWSON, a/k/a Tree,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00061-FL-1; 5:08-cv-00298-FL)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Dawson, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Ronald Dawson seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e) and 60(b) in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)

proceeding. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 Dawson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.

2 Additionally, we construe Dawson’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). Dawson’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