United States v. Wilson

174 F. App'x 738

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6125

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRINSTON WILSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:92-cr-00328-HMH-3; 7:05-cv-03471-HMH)

Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 10, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brinston Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Brinston Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the

district court properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson has not

made the requisite showing.

Additionally, we construe Wilson’s notice of appeal and

informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or

successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). To obtain authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on

either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

- 2 - unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to

establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the

movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Wilson’s

claim does not satisfy either of these conditions.

For these reasons, we deny a certificate of

appealability, decline to authorize Wilson to file a successive

§ 2255 motion, and dismiss the appeal. 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

- 3 -