US v. Gonzales March
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999257616-2]; denying [999344631] Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00590-CMC-6 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999344631]. Mailed to: Gonzales March. [13-7973]
Appeal: 13-7973
Doc: 8
Filed: 04/28/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7973
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GONZALES MARCH, a/k/a Gun, a/k/a Gon,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00590-CMC-6)
Submitted:
April 24, 2014
Decided:
April 28, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gonzales March, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Stanley D.
Ragsdale, Julius Ness Richardson, John David Rowell, Assistant
United States Attorneys, James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-7973
Doc: 8
Filed: 04/28/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Gonzales March seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders
treating
unauthorized
his
Fed.
successive
28
R.
Civ.
U.S.C.
P.
60(b)
§ 2255
motion
(2012)
as
motion,
an
and
dismissing it on that basis and denying his motion to alter or
amend the order.
justice
or
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
judge
issues
a
certificate
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
of
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) (2012).
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 March has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
2
Appeal: 13-7973
Doc: 8
Filed: 04/28/2014
Pg: 3 of 3
Additionally, we construe March’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) 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).
these
criteria.
March’s claims do not satisfy either of
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?