Court Opinion

ID: 9374760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:00:51.600609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.739036
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7224      Doc: 9         Filed: 02/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7224

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00017-GCM-WCM-1)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                  Decided: February 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7224         Doc: 9         Filed: 02/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

                Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., has noted an appeal from the district court’s order

        denying his motion to correct sentence. Burgess’ 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, 115-17

        (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)).

                Burgess’ motion challenged the validity of his conviction and sentence 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 Burgess’ 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 Burgess’ initial § 2255 motion on the merits in
        2015.

                                                        2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7224         Doc: 9    Filed: 02/22/2023   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