United States v. Hoberek

340 F. App'x 846

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6466

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STANLEY HOBEREK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:99-cr-00013-FPS-JES-1; 5:00-cv-00184-FPS-JES)

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 6, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Hoberek, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Stanley Hoberek seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge,

treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as successive 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motions, and dismissing them

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). 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 Hoberek has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny Hoberek’s motion for a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Hoberek’s notice of appeal

and informal brief as an application to file a second or

successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. United States v.

2 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. 2009).

Hoberek’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