US v. Williamson

Filing 920061222

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7558

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR EDWARD WILLIAMSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (8:02-cr-00324-HMH; 8:05-cv-01494-HMH)

Submitted: December 14, 2006

Decided: December 22, 2006

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., seeks to appeal the

district court's oral order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and motions for access to court reporter's records,

discovery, and for appointment of counsel in his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. 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 Williamson has not made the requisite showing as his action is a successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Williamson'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

- 2 -

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) 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 establish by by due diligence, and that would be sufficient that, but to for

clear

convincing

evidence

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. (2000). criteria. Williamson's claims do 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 not satisfy either of these

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 -