Alexander Cameron v. Commonwealth of Goochland Coun

Filing 920091006

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6849

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)

Submitted:

September 22, 2009

Decided:

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

basis. judge

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

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 (4th and Cir. 2001). that We have independently has not made reviewed the the

conclude

Cameron

requisite

showing.

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

would

process. DISMISSED

3