Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07349/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07349-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7349

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAWAAD NASH, a/k/a Wad,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00039-FDW-2; 3:12-cv-00283-FDW)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 23, 2015

Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jawaad Nash, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford, Kelli Hamby 

Ferry, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North 

Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7349 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jawaad Nash seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

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

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it 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)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Nash has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Appeal: 14-7349 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Additionally, we construe Nash’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 that . . . would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 

that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (2012). Nash’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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7349 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3