Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07375/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07375-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willie Reynolds
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7375

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIE REYNOLDS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (6:90-cr-00054; 1:06-cv-00084)

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

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7375 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Willie Reynolds seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, treating

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(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. See 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. See 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 Reynolds has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Reynolds’ notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

Appeal: 07-7375 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

file a successive § 2255 motion, 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

movant guilty of the offense. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Reynolds’ 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: 07-7375 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 3 of 3