US v. Hugh Epp
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999276281-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999276280-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00420-JRS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999327283].. [13-8051]
Appeal: 13-8051
Doc: 11
Filed: 04/01/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-8051
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HUGH EPPS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00420-JRS-1)
Submitted:
March 27, 2014
Before MOTZ, Circuit
Circuit Judges.
Judge,
Decided:
and
HAMILTON
and
April 1, 2014
DAVIS,
Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hugh Epps, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Michael
Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-8051
Doc: 11
Filed: 04/01/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Hugh Epps seeks to appeal the district court’s order
treating
his
motion
for
a
writ
of
error
coram
nobis
as
a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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) (2012).
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) (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 Epps has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny Epps’ motion for a transcript at government expense, deny a
certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
2
Appeal: 13-8051
Doc: 11
Filed: 04/01/2014
Pg: 3 of 3
Additionally, we construe Epps’ 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) (2012).
of these criteria.
Epps’ claims do not satisfy either
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?