Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06533/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06533-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Orillion Craddock
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6533

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ORILLION CRADDOCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:08-cr-00049-REP-1; 3:16-cv-00183-REP)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Orillion Craddock, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6533 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Orillion Craddock appeals the district court’s order 

treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Craddock, No. 3:08-cr-00049-REP-1 (E.D. 

Va. Mar. 23, 2016).

Additionally, we construe Craddock’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. 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 based on 

either:

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 

that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Craddock’s claims do not satisfy either of 

these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion.

Appeal: 16-6533 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-6533 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3