US v. Louis Bryant

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying [999303236] Originating case number: 3:04-cr-00047-NKM-RSB-1,3:13-cv-80668-NKM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999303236]. Mailed to: Louis Bryant. [13-7859]

Appeal: 13-7859

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7859

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LOUIS ANTONIO
Stacks,

BRYANT,

a/k/a

Tinio,

a/k/a

Black,

a/k/a

B

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00047-NKM-RSB-1; 3:13-cv-80668NKM)

Submitted:

February 11, 2014

Decided:

February 25, 2014

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Louis Antonio Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7859

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Louis

Antonio

Bryant

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration, denying as
moot his motion to compel and treating his “Addendum to § 2255”
as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing
it for lack of authorization from this court.
We

affirm

that

part

of

the

district

court’s

order

denying reconsideration and denying as moot the motion to compel
on

the

reasoning

Bryant,

Nos.

of

the

district

court.

3:04-cr-00047-NKM-RSB-1;

United

States

3:13-cv-80668-NKM

v.

(W.D.

Va. Oct. 29, 2013).
That part of the district court’s order denying the
“Addendum to § 2255” as a second or successive § 2255 motion is
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

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
2

Appeal: 13-7859

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/25/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling

is

debatable,

and

that

the

motion

states

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Bryant has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally,
and

informal

brief

we

as

construe

an

Bryant’s

application

to

notice
file

a

of

appeal

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 discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2255(h)

(2012).

either of these criteria.

Bryant’s

claims

do

not

satisfy

Therefore, we deny authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately

3

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 13-7859

before

Doc: 7

this

Filed: 02/25/2014

court

and

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4