US v. Damon Brightman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:03-cr-00627-SB-2,2:15-cv-00532-SB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999804427]. Mailed to: Damon Brightman FCI BENNETTSVILLE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 52020 Bennettsville, SC 29512-0000. [16-6134]

Appeal: 16-6134

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6134

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAMON BRIGHTMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:03-cr-00627-SB-2; 2:15-cv-00532-SB)

Submitted:

April 21, 2016

Decided:

April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Brightman, Appellant Pro Se.
Nathan S.
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
for Appellee.

Williams,
Carolina,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6134

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Damon Brightman 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 denying it on that basis.

As we

recently held, a certificate of appealability is not required in
order

for

us

to

categorization

of

address
a

the

“Rule

successive habeas petition.”
392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
that

Brightman

sought

district

60(b)

court’s

motion

as

an

jurisdictional
unauthorized

United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d
Our review of the record confirms

successive

§ 2255

relief,

without

authorization from this court, and we therefore hold that the
district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to
consider

the

subject

2255(h) (2012).

motion.

28

U.S.C.

§§ 2244(b)(3)(A),

Thus, we affirm the district court’s order.

Additionally, we construe Brightman’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion.
(4th Cir. 2003).

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
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

Appeal: 16-6134

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

(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.

Brightman’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
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3