Case ID: f-appx_78/html/0308-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Antonio WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-6635.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 19, 2003.
    Decided Oct. 22, 2003.
    Marvin Antonio White, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Marvin Antonio White, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying Ms motion for reconsideration of its order denying relief on Ms motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Because White’s motion directly attacked his conviction and sentence rather than any alleged defect in the collateral review process, it amounted to a successive § 2255 motion that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.2003). In accordance with Winestock, we construe White’s notice of appeal and m-formal brief on appeal as an application to file a successive § 2255 motion. See id. at 208. We have reviewed the record and find that White fails to meet the requirements for authorization to file such a successive motion.

In order to obtam authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a movant must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000). WMte does not satisfy either of these conditions. Aceordmgly, we affirm the order of the district court and deny White’s implicit application for leave to file a second § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented m the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.