Court Opinion

ID: 1020360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:50:03.277494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:30.260343
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 06-6934

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ARTHUR PAUL MOORE, JR., a/k/a Clay Workman,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.   Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:98-cr-00093-FWB-3; 1:06-cv-00019-FWB)

Submitted: August 31, 2006                  Decided: September 8, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Paul Moore, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Arthur Paul Moore, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge,

treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) 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) (2000);

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).          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)

(2000).     A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable     jurists   would   find    that   any    assessment    of   the

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong

and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is

likewise debatable.      Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).             We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made the

requisite    showing.     Accordingly,     we   deny    a   certificate   of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

            Additionally, we construe Moore’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.          United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).     In order to obtain authorization to

                                  - 2 -
file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims

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

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable      by   due   diligence,   that   would   be    sufficient   to

establish    by    clear     and   convincing    evidence     that,   but   for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense.             28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000).     Moore’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

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                      DISMISSED

                                     - 3 -