Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07457/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07457-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Johnny Lee Wesley
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7457

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHNNY LEE WESLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (1:97-cr-00382-HCM-2)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Lee Wesley, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 07-7457 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Lee Wesley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b)

motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) 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) (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 Wesley has not

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

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Wesley’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

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims

Appeal: 07-7457 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

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). Wesley’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: 07-7457 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 3 of 3