United States v. Dixon

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Dixon

146 F. App'x 693

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Dixon. Read the opinion of the Court — 51 F. App'x 922 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 27, 2005·No. 05-6776·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Antoine Lavar Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Because Dixon’s motion did not assert a defect in the collateral review process itself, but rather reargued the merits of his § 2255 motion based on new case law, the motion was properly characterized a successive § 2255 motion under our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.2003). *

To appeal an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a § 2255 action, Dixon must establish entitlement to a certificate of appealability. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-70 (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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dixon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent that Dixon’s notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208.

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

*

Although the district court’s order does not refer to Dixon’s motion as a successive § 2255 motion, such a conclusion can be inferred from the court's reasoning.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Antoine Lavar Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Because Dixon’s motion did not assert a defect in the collateral review process itself, but rather reargued the merits of his § 2255 motion based on new case law, the motion was properly characterized a successive § 2255 motion under our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.2003). *

To appeal an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a § 2255 action, Dixon must establish entitlement to a certificate of appealability. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-70 (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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dixon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent that Dixon’s notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208.

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

*

Although the district court’s order does not refer to Dixon’s motion as a successive § 2255 motion, such a conclusion can be inferred from the court's reasoning.

United States v. Dixon, 146 F. App'x 693 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

146 F. App'x 693 (United States v. Dixon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related