US v. Brian Bronson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 5:06-cr-00249-D-1,5:12-cv-00467-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999263292]. Mailed to: Brian Bronson. [13-7223]

Appeal: 13-7223

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/19/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7223

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRIAN JAMES BRONSON, a/k/a Little B,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00249-D-1; 5:12-cv-00467-D)

Submitted:

December 17, 2013

Decided: December 19, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian James Bronson, Appellant Pro Se.
John Howarth Bennett,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North
Carolina; William Ellis Boyle, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Michael Gordon James,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7223

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/19/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Brian
court’s

order

James

Bronson

dismissing

as

seeks

to

appeal

time-barred

Bronson’s

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. *
appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

the

justice

district
second

28

The order is not

or

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

merits,

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

satisfies

this

standard

by

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

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that

Bronson

has

not

made

the

requisite

showing.

Bronson’s

motion, which challenged the validity of his career offender
*

Alternatively, the district court ruled that Bronson’s
motion was barred by the waiver-of-rights provision included in
his plea agreement.

2

Appeal: 13-7223

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/19/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

sentence, should have been deemed a successive § 2255 motion.
And in the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court,
the

district

court

lacked

jurisdiction

to

adjudicate

timeliness of this successive § 2255 motion.
§ 2244(b)(3)

(2006).

Accordingly,

we

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

deny

a

the

See 28 U.S.C.
certificate

of

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3