Court Opinion

ID: 2682144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-07-08 07:00:53.091074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:35.307340
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-6667

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, a/k/a Jeffrey A. Pleasants,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:00-cr-00071-REP-1; 3:14-cv-00259-REP)

Submitted:   June 26, 2014                 Decided:    June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Jeffrey       A.    Pleasant            seeks   to     appeal      the       district

court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on

that    basis.      The    order      is       not    appealable        unless       a    circuit

justice    or    judge    issues      a    certificate        of      appealability.           28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 Pleasant has not made the requisite showing.                              Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

            Additionally, we construe Pleasant’s notice of appeal

and    informal    brief       as    an    application           to    file    a     second    or

                                                2
successive § 2255 motion.        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) (2012).         Pleasant’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   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                     3