Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06586/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06586-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derrick Vincent Redd
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6586

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DERRICK VINCENT REDD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-01301-LMB)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Vincent Redd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6586 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/03/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Redd seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order treating his petition for a writ of mandamus as a 

successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 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) (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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Redd has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Appeal: 10-6586 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/03/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Additionally, we construe Redd’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, 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; or (2) a new rule of 

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by 

the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2010). Redd’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: 10-6586 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/03/2010 Pg: 3 of 3