Case Name: Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack LEE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-06
Citations: 127 F. App'x 676
Docket Number: Nos. 03-7209, 03-7240, 03-7455
Parties: Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jack LEE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 676–677

Head Matter:
Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jack LEE, Respondent—Appellee.
Nos. 03-7209, 03-7240, 03-7455.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 9, 2005.
Decided May 6, 2005.
Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant pro se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Gregory A. Richardson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motions seeking reconsideration of the court's order denying Richardson's habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny Richardson a certificate of appealability, deny his motions for appointment of counsel and "summary judgment," and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Richardson's notices of appeal and informal briefs on appeal as applications to file a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, 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 that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000). Richardson's claims do not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Richardson to file a successive § 2254 petition. 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