Court Opinion

ID: 9365125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:25.206792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:42.994766
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7314      Doc: 7        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7314

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ROBERT JAMES TURNER, a/k/a Robert James Branham,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:96-cr-00374-LMB-1)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert James Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7314        Doc: 7        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert James Turner has noted an appeal from the district court’s order denying his

        motion to dismiss indictment. Turner’s motion was, in substance, a successive 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion. The denial of this motion is not appealable in the absence of a certificate

        of appealability. 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

        standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

        of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, ___,

        137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v.

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

               Turner’s motion challenged the validity of his conviction and should have been

        construed as a successive § 2255 motion. ∗ See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32

        (2005); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). In the absence of

        pre-filing authorization from this Court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear

        Turner’s successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Accordingly, we deny a

        certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

               ∗
                   The district court denied relief on Turner’s initial § 2255 motion on the merits
        in 1999.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7314         Doc: 7    Filed: 01/20/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

              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

                                                  3