US v. Thomas Smith, Jr.

Filing 920091022

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7327 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THOMAS E. SMITH, JR., a/k/a Anthony Young, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-01135-TSE; 1:03-cr-00245-TSE-1) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas E. Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas E. Smith, Jr., 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 issues a certificate of judge 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The district court's finding that Smith's motion merely reiterated the claims raised in his original 2255 was tantamount to a finding that the motion for reconsideration was a successive motion. * 2 Additionally, we construe Smith's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255. 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. United States v. Winestock, In order to obtain 2003). 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 clear error, convincing reasonable evidence constitutional 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. 2009). Smith'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 would process. DISMISSED 3

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?