US v. Paul
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PETER PAUL, a/k/a Peter Paul Alexander, a/k/a Sluggie, a/k/a Peter P. Alexander; a/k/a Mark Eric Green; a/k/a Paul Eustance; a/k/a Derrick Anderson, a/k/a Mark Harris, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (3:95-cr-00104-REP; 3:06-cv-00587-REP)
December 21, 2006
January 5, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter Paul, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Peter Paul 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 (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); A certificate
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 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 Paul has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Paul's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). United States v. Winestock, 340
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 establish by by due diligence, and that would be sufficient that, but to for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. (2000). 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255
Paul'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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?