UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7119
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LLOYD GEORGE MAXWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-93-262-A; CA-04-635)
Submitted: December 23, 2004 Decided: January 7, 2005
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lloyd George Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lloyd George Maxwell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his “New Rules Notice of Motion for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [2000]”. An appeal may not be
taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue
absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Maxwell has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, while we grant his motion to file a
supplemental informal brief, we deny his motion for a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Maxwell’s notice of appeal and
informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995
(2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive
- 2 -
§ 2255 motion, a prisoner 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 petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Maxwell’s claims do not satisfy either
of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Maxwell 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 -