Alexander Cameron v. Commonwealth of Goochland Coun
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ALEXANDER CAMERON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-01346-JCC-IDD)
September 22, 2009
October 6, 2009
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander Cameron, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Alexander Cameron seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and dismissing it on that
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 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 (4th and Cir. 2001). that We have independently has not made reviewed the the
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Cameron's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or
successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
United States v. In order to
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). 2
obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, 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, not previously discoverable 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 petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2006). Cameron's claims Therefore, we deny
do not satisfy either of these criteria.
authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. 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?