Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06722/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06722-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelvin Andre Spotts
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6722

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, 

Chief District Judge. (3:98-cr-00047-1; 3:00-cv-00647)

Submitted: September 30, 2016 Decided: October 14, 2016 

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Andre Spotts, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Steven 

Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West 

Virginia; Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6722 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Andre Spotts seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motions and denying them as successive and 

unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Spotts’ notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

Appeal: 16-6722 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/14/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

§ 2255 motion. See 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). Spotts’ 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: 16-6722 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/14/2016 Pg: 3 of 3