UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6946
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GEORGE CHAMBERS, a/k/a Dave,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 04-7486
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GEORGE CHAMBERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CR-94-89; CA-03-303-3)
Submitted: February 18, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Catherine Wu, Joan
Elizabeth Evans, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, George Chambers seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion
filed under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000), construed
as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and his
motion for relief from judgment filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
A certificate of appealability is required in order to
appeal these orders. See Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th
Cir. 2004); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th Cir. 2004).
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, 336 (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 Chambers has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability.
Because Chambers’s motion under Rule 60(b) asserted a new
claim and did not merely allege a defect in the collateral process,
it constituted a successive § 2255 motion rather than a true Rule
60(b) motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205
- 3 -
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). In accordance
with Winestock, we construe Chambers’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application for authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion. Id. at 208.
A movant seeking authorization to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion must show 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). Chambers’s claims do not
satisfy either of these conditions. We therefore deny Chambers
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
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 4 -