Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07720/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07720-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marion Leon Bea
Appellant
Gene Johnson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7720

MARION LEON BEA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00907-TSE-TCB)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marion Leon Bea, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7720 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/22/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Marion Leon Bea filed motions in the district court 

challenging his Virginia state court convictions that he 

characterized as seeking relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). He

seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his motions

collectively as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, 

and denying relief 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 Bea has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 

of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Bea’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

Appeal: 09-7720 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/22/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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 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) (2006). Bea’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: 09-7720 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/22/2010 Pg: 3 of 3