US v. Kelvin Andre Spott

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:98-cr-00047-1,3:00-cv-00647 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999947254]. Mailed to: Kelvin Andre Spotts UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY BEAUMONT P. O. Box 26030 Beaumont, TX 77720-6030. [16-6722]

Appeal: 16-6722

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/14/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6722

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:98-cr-00047-1; 3:00-cv-00647)

Submitted:

September 30, 2016

Decided:

October 14, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Andre Spotts, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Steven
Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West
Virginia;
Richard
Gregory
McVey,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6722

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/14/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Andre Spotts seeks to appeal the district court’s
order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255

(2012)

motions

unauthorized.
justice
U.S.C.

or

The

judge

and

order

issues

§ 2253(c)(1)

denying

is
a

not

them

appealable

certificate

(2012)).

A

as

of

successive

unless

a

and

circuit

appealability.

certificate

of

28

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
Spotts has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally,

we

construe

Spotts’

notice

of

appeal

and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
2

Appeal: 16-6722

Doc: 12

§ 2255 motion.

Filed: 10/14/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

See 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.

Spotts’ 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

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3