Adib Makdessi v. Bryan Watson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999891573-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999891571-2] Originating case number: 3:09-cv-00214-MHL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999961474]. Mailed to: Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi RED ONION STATE PRISON 10800 H. Jack Rose Highway P. O. Box 970 Pound, VA 24279-0000. [16-6852]

Appeal: 16-6852

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6852

ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI, a/k/a Eddie Makdessi,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN WATSON, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
M. Hannah Lauck, District
Judge. (3:09-cv-00214-MHL)

Submitted:

October 25, 2016

Decided:

November 3, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Appellant Pro Se.
Leah A. Darron,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6852

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Adib
order

Eddie

Ramez

dismissing

Makdessi

his

Fed.

R.

appeals
Civ.

P.

the

district

60(b)

court’s

motion

as

unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

an
We

error.

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

See Makdessi v. Watson, No. 3:09–cv–00214–MHL (E.D. Va.

June 16, 2016).

We deny Makdessi’s motions for the appointment

of counsel and transcripts at Government expense.
Consistent with United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200,
208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Makdessi’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244
(2012), to file a second or successive § 2254 petition.
order

to

obtain

authorization

to

file

a

successive

§ 2254

petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:
new,

previously

unavailable

rule

of

constitutional

In

(1) a

law

made

retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review;
or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by
due

diligence,

evidence

that,

factfinder
offense.
satisfy

that
but

would

would
for

have

establish

constitutional
found

the

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).
either

of

by

these

clear

and

convincing

error,

no

reasonable

petitioner

guilty

the

Makdessi’s claims fail to

criteria.

We

therefore

authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.
2

of

deny

Appeal: 16-6852

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/03/2016

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