US v. Edward Jeffus

Filing 920090701

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6490

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWARD DANE JEFFUS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:92-cr-00184-NCT-2)

Submitted:

June 22, 2009

Decided:

July 1, 2009

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Dane Jeffus, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Edward appeal the Dane Jeffus, court's a federal prisoner, his seeks to

district

orders

denying

motion

filed

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) in part and dismissing it in part as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion; denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing; and

denying his motion to alter or amend judgment. The district court's orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or 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 Jeffus has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

2

Additionally,

we

construe

Jeffus's

notice

of

appeal

and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. See United In 2255

States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). order to obtain authorization to file a successive §

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 that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder offense. would have found the petitioner guilty of the

28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2006).

Jeffus's claims

do not satisfy either of these conditions.

We therefore deny

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. Although we grant Jeffus's motion to supplement his informal brief, we deny his motions to supplement the record on appeal and for appointment of counsel. 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