US v. Malik Shakur

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00485-CMC-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999368253]. Mailed to: Malik Shakur. [14-6276]

Appeal: 14-6276

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6276

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MALIK X. SHAKUR, a/k/a Willie Lamb,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00485-CMC-2)

Submitted:

May 29, 2014

Decided:

June 3, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malik X. Shakur, Appellant Pro Se.
Nancy Chastain Wicker,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6276

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Malik X. Shakur seeks to appeal the district court’s
order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as successive
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions, and denying the motions on that
basis.
or

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice

judge

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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 Shakur has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

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

informal

brief

as

we
an

construe

Shakur’s

application
2

to

notice
file

a

of

appeal

second

or

Appeal: 14-6276

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

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.

Shakur’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
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3