US v. Carlos Wood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998828564-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00649-WDQ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998899939]. Mailed to: Carlos Woods. [12-6561]

Appeal: 12-6561

Doc: 18

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6561

CARLOS WOODS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:12-cv-00649-WDQ)

Submitted:

July 19, 2012

Decided:

July 23, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Carlos Woods, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6561

Doc: 18

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Carlos Woods filed a petition for a writ of audita
querela in the district court, pursuant to the All Writs Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006), seeking to challenge his convictions on
two

counts

of

possession

controlled substances.

with

the

intent

to

distribute

The district court treated the petition

as both a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and a
petition

for

a

writ

of

audita

querela

and

issued

an

order

dismissing the petition on the basis that the § 2255 motion was
successive and Woods had not demonstrated entitlement to the
extraordinary remedy of a writ of audita querela.
appeals.

Woods now

We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
The

portion

of

the

district

court’s

order

treating

Woods’ petition as a successive § 2255 motion and dismissing it
on that basis is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

constitutional

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

right.”

appealability.

28

showing
U.S.C.

of

the

denial

§ 2253(c)(2).

of

When

a
the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

see

Miller-El

v.

2

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

Appeal: 12-6561

Doc: 18

(2003).

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
and

conclude

that

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record
Woods

has

not

made

the

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
this portion of the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Woods’ notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion.

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208

(4th Cir. 2003).

In order to obtain authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
either:

(1) newly

discoverable
establish

by

by

due

clear

discovered
diligence,
and

evidence,
that

convincing

would

not
be

evidence

previously

sufficient
that,

but

to
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.
§ 2255(h).
criteria.

Woods’

claims

do

not

satisfy

28 U.S.C.A.

either

of

these

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive

§ 2255 motion.

3

Appeal: 12-6561

Doc: 18

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

With respect to the portion of the district court’s
order denying relief on the merits on Woods’ petition for a writ
of audita querela, we confine our review on appeal to the issues
raised

in

the

Appellant’s

brief.

4th

See

Cir.

R.

34(b).

Because Woods’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition, Woods has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order.
proceed

in

judgment.
legal
before

forma

and

affirm

the

district

court’s

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

pauperis

Accordingly, we grant leave to

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

4