UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6581
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDWARD HAROLD SAUNDERS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-94-17-11, CA-03-98-3)
Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 30, 2003
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie
Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his application for relief from judgment, in
which he challenged his conviction for conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine based upon newly discovered evidence
allegedly showing that he is actually innocent. The district court
construed Saunders’ pleading as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000), and denied the motion as successive, noting that
Saunders had not sought authorization from this court to file such
a motion. This court may grant a certificate of appealability to
appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion only if Saunders makes a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). Where, as here, a district court
dismisses a § 2255 motion on procedural grounds, a certificate of
appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate “(1)
‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
[motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941
(2001). We have independently reviewed the record and Saunders’
informal brief and conclude that Saunders has not made the
requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003).
2
We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
Pursuant to our decision in United States v. Winestock,
F.3d , 2003 WL 1949822, at *7 (4th Cir. Apr. 25, 2003), we
construe Saunders’ notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as
an application to file a second or successive motion to vacate
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In order to obtain authorization to file
a successive § 2255 motion, a movant must assert claims based on
either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously
unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on
collateral review; or (2) 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. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 ¶ 8 (2000). Saunders’
claims do not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we
decline to authorize Saunders to file a successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3