US v. Jeffrey Pleasant

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:00-cr-00071-REP-1,3:14-cv-00259-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999385601]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-6667]

Appeal: 14-6667

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6667

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, a/k/a Jeffrey A. Pleasants,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:00-cr-00071-REP-1; 3:14-cv-00259-REP)

Submitted:

June 26, 2014

Decided:

June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.
Stephen Wiley Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6667

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey

A.

Pleasant

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion 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 Pleasant has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Pleasant’s notice of appeal
and

informal

brief

as

an

application
2

to

file

a

second

or

Appeal: 14-6667

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/30/2014

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.

Pleasant’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