Court Opinion

ID: 9365139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:36.598763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.301035
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6882      Doc: 8         Filed: 01/20/2023      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6882

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ANTHONY GENE TRAPPIER,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:09-cr-00340-TLW-1; 4:21-cv-02513-TLW)

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

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

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Anthony Gene Trappier, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6882       Doc: 8        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

                Anthony Gene Trappier seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as

        successive and unauthorized Trappier’s motions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and

        Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. We affirm in part and deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss in

        part.

                The district court’s determination that Trappier’s § 2255 motion was successive and

        unauthorized is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

        appealability. See 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, as here, 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 Trappier has not made the

        requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

        appeal in part.

                We agree with the district court that Trappier’s Rule 60 motions amounted to

        successive § 2255 motions for which this court did not grant prefiling authorization as

        required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244. And, to the extent that Trappier’s Rule 60 motions attacked

        the integrity of his habeas proceedings, we agree with the district court that the motions

        were untimely and, in any event, meritless. We therefore affirm those holdings. See, e.g.,

        United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that this court “need

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6882        Doc: 8       Filed: 01/20/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        not issue a [certificate of appealability] before determining whether the district court erred

        in dismissing [a defendant’s] purported Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive

        habeas petition”).

               Additionally, we construe Trappier’s notice of appeal and appellate brief as a motion

        to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

        200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), abrogated in part on other grounds by McRae, 793 F.3d 392. In

        order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert

        claims based on either: (1) a new, previously unavailable rule of constitutional law, made

        retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered

        evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient

        to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have

        found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Because Trappier’s claims

        do not satisfy either of these criteria, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

        motion.

               Based on the foregoing, we affirm the appeal in part and deny a certificate of

        appealability and dismiss in part. 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.

                                                                              AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                              DISMISSED IN PART

                                                      3