US v. Courtney Bailey
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COURTNEY ANTHONY BAILEY, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:05-cr-00099-AW-1; 8:07-cv-00290-AW)
August 17, 2009
August 26, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Courtney Anthony Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Chan Park, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Courtney Anthony Bailey seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion, and
dismissing it on that basis. a circuit justice or
The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 369 F.3d 363,
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
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 Bailey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, and informal brief as we an construe Bailey's to notice file a of appeal or
successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
United States v. In order to
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). 2
successive based on
§ 2255 either:
(1) newly by due
diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no
reasonable 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. Bailey's claims do 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2009). 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?