US v. Nathaniel Richardson, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 2:96-cr-00153-RAJ-1,2:08-cv-00322-RAJ. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999479851]. Mailed to: Appellant. [14-7270]
Appeal: 14-7270
Doc: 7
Filed: 11/21/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7270
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NATHANIEL A. RICHARDSON, JR., a/k/a Nathaniel Skeeter, a/k/a
Skeet,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:96-cr-00153-RAJ-1; 2:08-cv-00322-RAJ)
Submitted:
November 18, 2014
Decided:
November 21, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel A. Richardson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie
Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-7270
Doc: 7
Filed: 11/21/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel
A.
Richardson,
Jr.,
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 order is 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
Richardson
has
not
made
the
requisite
showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.
2
Appeal: 14-7270
Doc: 7
Filed: 11/21/2014
Additionally,
we
Pg: 3 of 3
construe
Richardson’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).
of these criteria.
Richardson’s 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?