US v. Claude Bellamy

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:99-cr-00049-F-1,7:03-CV-00024-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999407994]. Mailed to: Claude Bellamy. [14-6742]

Appeal: 14-6742

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/01/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6742

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLAUDE WENDELL BELLAMY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:99-cr-00049-F-1)

Submitted:

July 29, 2014

Decided:

August 1, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude Wendell Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se.
John Samuel Bowler,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6742

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/01/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Claude Wendell Bellamy seeks to appeal the district
court’s order treating his motion for relief as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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 (2000);

Cockrell,

(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 Bellamy has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

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

informal

brief

as

an

application
2

to

file

a

second

or

Appeal: 14-6742

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/01/2014

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.

Bellamy’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