Court Opinion

ID: 9412353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 21:00:42.717056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:27.214680
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6156     Doc: 13        Filed: 07/28/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 23-6156

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ERIC MARIO BYERS,

                           Defendant - Appellant.

                                             No. 23-6238

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ERIC MARIO BYERS,

                           Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:02-cr-00077-RBS-1; 2:23-cv-
        00078-RBS)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                       Decided: July 28, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6156      Doc: 13         Filed: 07/28/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Eric Mario Byers, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6156       Doc: 13         Filed: 07/28/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

                Eric Mario Byers appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for early

        termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), denying his second 28

        U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized, and declining to consider Byers’

        motion declaring supervised release unconstitutional. We affirm in part and dismiss in

        part.

                We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering Byers’

        offense conduct in denying his motion for early termination of supervised release. We thus

        affirm that part of the court’s order. Byers’ appeal from the court’s order denying his

        second § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

        of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v.

        Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

        We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Byers has not made the

        requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss that part

        of the appeal.

                Byers’ motion challenging the constitutionality of supervised release should have

        been construed as another challenge to the legality of Byers’ sentence and brought under

        § 2255. Because Byers did not receive authorization from this court to file a second or

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6156       Doc: 13         Filed: 07/28/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        successive § 2255 motion, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider it. We

        thus deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this part of the appeal.

               Accordingly, we affirm in part, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss in

        part. We deny Byers’ motion and supplemental motion for a limited remand to consider

        his constitutional challenge to supervised release. 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.

                                                                                AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                                DISMISSED IN PART

                                                      4