US v. Octavius Cline
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying a certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 6:02-cr-01358-HMH-12,6:10-cv-70303-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999530026]. Mailed to: Octavius Cline. [14-7404]
Appeal: 14-7404
Doc: 5
Filed: 02/18/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7404
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
OCTAVIUS S. CLINE, a/k/a Toby,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:02-cr-01358-HMH-12; 6:10-cv-70303-HMH)
Submitted:
February 12, 2015
Decided:
February 18, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Octavius S. Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-7404
Doc: 5
Filed: 02/18/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Octavius S. Cline seeks to appeal the district court’s
order
denying
his
reconsideration
of
Fed.
the
R.
Civ.
district
P.
60(b)
court’s
order
successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
appealable
unless
a
circuit
certificate of appealability.
A
certificate
of
justice
motion
for
dismissing
as
The order is not
or
judge
issues
a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
appealability
will
not
issue
absent
“a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief
on
the
demonstrating
district
debatable
merits,
that
court’s
or
a
When the district court denies
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
Slack
satisfies
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
constitutional
529
U.S.
that
by
the
claims
is
473,
484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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 or underlying habeas
application
states
constitutional right.
a
debatable
claim
of
the
denial
of
a
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th
Cir. 2004).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Cline has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2
Appeal: 14-7404
Doc: 5
Filed: 02/18/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
Additionally, we construe Cline’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).
these
criteria.
Cline’s claims do not satisfy either of
Therefore,
we
deny
authorization
to
file
a
successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
contentions
before 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?