Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07411/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07411-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Domingo Nolberto Pena
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-7411 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DOMINGO NOLBERTO PENA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:98-cr-00132-JCC; 1:00-cv-01693)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Domingo Nolberto Pena, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7411 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Domingo Nolberto Pena seeks to appeal the district

court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on

that basis, and a subsequent order denying his motion for

reconsideration. 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 Pena has not

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

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Pena’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

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

Appeal: 07-7411 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

file a successive § 2255 motion, 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

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Pena’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

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-7411 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/28/2007 Pg: 3 of 3