Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06158/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06158-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6158

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CARLOS TOLSON ANDREWS, a/k/a Crip Los,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00017-LMB-2; 1:09-cv-00461-LMB)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Tolson Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Derek Andreson, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6158 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/06/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Tolson Andrews seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a 

successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 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) (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 Andrews has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Andrews’ 

motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal.

Additionally, we construe Andrews’ 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. 

Appeal: 10-6158 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/06/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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). 

Andrews’ 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

Appeal: 10-6158 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/06/2010 Pg: 3 of 3