US v. Rodney Wall
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RODNEY EDWARD Rodney, WALL, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:99-24-9, a/k/a Big
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)
May 21, 2009
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
(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
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
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
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
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?