Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06232/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06232-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6232

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 Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (7:03-cv-00024-F; 7:99-cr-00049-F-1)

Submitted: April 2, 2010 Decided: June 15, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, 

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude Wendell Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6232 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/15/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Claude Bellamy seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b). 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). 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. 

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 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 motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010). 

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). 

In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 

Appeal: 10-6232 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/15/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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 petitioner guilty of 

the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2006). 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 the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6232 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/15/2010 Pg: 3 of 3