Court Opinion

ID: 4108066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-12-16 20:01:04.630951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:42.768136
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 16-7164

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JANEIRO BURGESS, a/k/a Key, a/k/a Dirty,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:12-cr-00019-FL-1; 7:13-cv-00277-FL)

Submitted:   December 5, 2016             Decided:   December 16, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Janeiro Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

        Janeiro Burgess 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

Burgess has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

        Additionally, we construe Burgess’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

                                           2
§ 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).     Burgess’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