US v. Dwayne McFadden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:04-cr-00564-TLW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999721093]. Mailed to: McFadden. [15-7191]

Appeal: 15-7191

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7191

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DWAYNE MCFADDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:04-cr-00564-TLW-1)

Submitted:

December 8, 2015

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

December 18, 2015

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Dwayne McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Parham, PARHAM LAW
OFFICE, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7191

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dwayne McFadden seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for a new trial.
With respect to the portion of the district court’s order
denying relief under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order in part for the reasons stated by the
district

court.

United

States

v.

McFadden,

No.

4:04-cr-00564-TLW-1 (D.S.C. June 3, 2015).
The portion of the district court’s order construing the
new trial motion as seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
and denying such relief to McFadden is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive
2

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
is

Appeal: 15-7191

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

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
McFadden has not made the requisite showing.
lacked

jurisdiction

to

deny

§ 2255

The district court

relief

on

the

merits.

McFadden’s motion challenged the validity of his sentence.

The

motion was properly construed as a successive § 2255 motion,
see Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531–32 (2005) (explaining
how to differentiate a true Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion from an
unauthorized

second

or

successive

habeas

corpus

petition);

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003)
(same), but should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
in light of the absence of pre-filing authorization from this
court.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012); Winestock, 340 F.3d

at 205.
Accordingly,

we

deny

a

dismiss the appeal in part.

certificate

of

appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND
DISMISSED IN PART

3