Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08168/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08168-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commonwealth of Virginia
Appellee
Michael Isiah Lawrence
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-8168

MICHAEL ISIAH LAWRENCE, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior 

District Judge. (7:09-cv-00459-jct-mfu) 

Submitted: January 6, 2010 Decided: January 25, 2010 

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael Isiah Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-8168 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/25/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
PER CURIAM: 

Michael Isiah Lawrence seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his motion for post-conviction DNA 

testing as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, 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); Jones v. Braxton, 

392 F.3d 683, 687 (4th Cir. 2004); 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 Lawrence has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

Additionally, we construe Lawrence’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. 

2 

Appeal: 09-8168 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/25/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3 

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). Lawrence’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: 09-8168 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/25/2010 Pg: 3 of 3