Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07292/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07292-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Claude Wendell Bellamy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7292

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLAUDE WENDELL BELLAMY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (7:99-cr-00049-F-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude Wendell Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, 

Assistant United States Attorney, John Samuel Bowler, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7292 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Claude Wendell Bellamy seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). 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 that

Bellamy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Bellamy’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 

Appeal: 16-7292 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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). Bellamy’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 this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7292 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3