Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06082/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06082-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6078

BERNARD SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GOVERNOR,

Respondent - Appellee.

______________

No. 08-6082

BERNARD SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GOVERNOR; ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(8:04-cv-03829-DKC; 8:04-cv-03955-DKC)

Submitted: May 1, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 08-6082 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/08/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Smith, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Edward

John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,

Maryland; Steven Giles Hildenbrand, Assistant Attorney General,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6082 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/08/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in two related

cases as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and denying

the motion on that basis. The orders are not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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) (2000). 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 Smith has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Smith’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

Appeal: 08-6082 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/08/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner 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, 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

petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000).

Smith’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore,

we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.

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

Appeal: 08-6082 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/08/2008 Pg: 4 of 4