US v. Hubert Ramsey

Filing 920080128

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7577 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HUBERT RAMSEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:96-cr-00005; 5:99-cv-00129) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hubert Ramsey, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hubert Ramsey seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) motion and dismissing it, in part, as a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion. 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 A certificate of v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 Ramsey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Ramsey'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 file a successive 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims - 2 - 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). 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2), 2255 Ramsey'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 -

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?