US v. Bryant Pride
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-2,1:11-cv-80408-JPJ-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court. [998976941]. Mailed to: Bryant Pride. [12-6615]
Appeal: 12-6615
Doc: 17
Filed: 11/07/2012
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6615
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRYANT KELLY PRIDE, a/k/a Pride,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-2; 1:11-cv-80408-JPJ-RSB)
Submitted:
November 2, 2012
Decided:
November 7, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryant Kelly Pride, Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer R. Bockhorst,
Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-6615
Doc: 17
Filed: 11/07/2012
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Bryant
Kelly
Pride
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
court’s order treating his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(c)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) as a successive 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion, and dismissing it on
that
basis.
justice
or
The
judge
order
issues
is
a
not
appealable
certificate
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
of
unless
a
circuit
appealability.
28
A certificate of appealability
will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
When 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);
(2003).
see
Miller-El
v.
537
U.S.
322,
336-38
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.
Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Pride has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2
Appeal: 12-6615
Doc: 17
Filed: 11/07/2012
Pg: 3 of 3
Additionally, we construe Pride’s 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)
discoverable
establish
newly
by
by
due
discovered
diligence,
clear
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.
28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255(h)
not
(West
Supp.
2012).
either of these criteria.
Pride’s
claims
do
satisfy
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
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
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?