Court Opinion

ID: 9930419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:00:46.799588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:18:22.557423
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6660      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/05/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6660

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TYRONE YOUNG,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Danville. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (4:18-cr-00017-JPJ-1)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tyrone Young, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6660      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/05/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Tyrone Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion styled

        as a motion to supplement his fourth motion for reconsideration. Because Young sought

        reconsideration of the court’s previous order denying his third 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,

        the court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

        appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d

        392, 399-400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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)).

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

        the requisite showing. Because the claims Young raised challenged the validity of his

        convictions, his motion to supplement should have been construed as a successive § 2255

        motion. See Bixby v. Stirling, __ F.4th __, __, No. 22-4, 2024 WL 85060, at *5-10 (4th Cir.

        Jan. 5, 2024). In the absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the district court

        lacked jurisdiction to consider a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3),

        2255(h).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6660      Doc: 12        Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

              Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Young’s motion for

        appointment of counsel, grant his motions for leave to file supplemental informal briefs

        asserting the claims he wished to raise on appeal, and dismiss the appeal. 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