US v. Rodney Wall

Filing 920090529

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6146 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RODNEY EDWARD Rodney, WALL, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:99-24-9, a/k/a Big Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00024-FDW-9) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 29, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Edward Wall, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rodney Edward Wall seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration motion. judge of his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2008) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate Reid v. of appealability. 369 F.3d 28 U.S.C. 369 2253(c)(1) (2006); Angelone, 363, (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." this 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006). by demonstrating that A prisoner satisfies jurists would standard reasonable 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 record showing. (4th and Cir. 2001). that We have independently not made reviewed the the conclude Wall has requisite Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Wall's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255. 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2 United States v. Winestock, 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert not claims based on either: by (1) newly due discovered that evidence, would be previously to for discoverable establish by diligence, and no sufficient that, but clear error, convincing reasonable evidence constitutional factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. 2255(h) (West Supp. 2008). Wall'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 before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional would 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?