US v. P. Ferguson
Filing
Corrected opinion filed [999034147] amending and superseding prior opinion Originating case number: 3:06-cr-00061-JFA-6,3:10-cv-70252-JFA. Copies to all parties. Mailed to: P.W. Ferguson. [12-7757]
Appeal: 12-7757
Doc: 7
Filed: 01/31/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
CORRECTED OPINION
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7757
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
P. W. FERGUSON, a/k/a PW, a/k/a Patrick William Ferguson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:06-cr-00061-JFA-6; 3:10-cv-70252-JFA)
Submitted:
January 17, 2013
Corrected Opinion Filed:
Decided:
January 23, 2013
January 31, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
P. W. Ferguson, Appellant Pro Se.
Jimmie Ewing, Assistant
United States Attorney, Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-7757
Doc: 7
Filed: 01/31/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
P. W. Ferguson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). *
The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a
certificate
(2006).
of
appealability.
28
U.S.C.
§
2253(c)(1)(B)
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).
on
the
merits,
demonstrating
district
debatable
that
court’s
or
a
When the district court denies relief
prisoner
satisfies
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
Slack
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
that
U.S.
the
claims
constitutional
529
by
is
473,
484
(2000); see Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003).
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
the
484–85.
conclude
that
We
have
Ferguson
independently
has
not
*
reviewed
made
the
record
requisite
and
showing.
Because Ferguson’s Rule 60(b) motion directly attacked his
conviction, it was, in essence, an unauthorized and successive
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion over which the
district court lacked jurisdiction. United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003).
2
Appeal: 12-7757
Doc: 7
Filed: 01/31/2013
Pg: 3 of 3
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Ferguson’s notice of appeal
and
informal
brief
as
an
successive § 2255 motion.
application
to
file
a
second
Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208.
or
In order
to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a
prisoner
must
discovered
assert
evidence,
claims
not
based
on
previously
either:
(1)
discoverable
newly
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 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.
not
satisfy
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h).
either
of
these
criteria.
Ferguson’s claims do
Therefore,
we
deny
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
this
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?