US v. Orillion Craddock

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00049-REP-1,3:16-cv-00183-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999902315]. Mailed to: Orillion Craddock UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY P. O. Box 1000 Lewisburg, PA 17837-0000. [16-6533]

Appeal: 16-6533

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6533

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ORILLION CRADDOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00049-REP-1; 3:16-cv-00183-REP)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 2, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Orillion Craddock, Appellant Pro Se.
Stephen Wiley Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6533

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Orillion
treating

his

Craddock
Fed.

R.

appeals
Civ.

P.

the
60(b)

district
motion

court’s
as

a

order

successive

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis.
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

United States v. Craddock, No. 3:08-cr-00049-REP-1 (E.D.

Va. Mar. 23, 2016).
Additionally, we construe Craddock’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) 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.

Craddock’s claims do not satisfy either of

Therefore,

we

successive § 2255 motion.

2

deny

authorization

to

file

a

Appeal: 16-6533

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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