UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7448
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMIE SYLVESTER HAWKINS, a/k/a Jaime Sylvester
Hawkins,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-00-565-AW; CA-02-3096-AW)
Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamie Sylvester Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. James Marton Trusty,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jamie Sylvester Hawkins, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his request for
a certificate of appealability, which was in essence a Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b) motion that we construe as a successive and unauthorized
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. See United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995 (2003).
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 for claims addressed by a district
court 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 both that the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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-
38; 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 Hawkins has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
- 2 -
Additionally, we construe Hawkins’ notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
motion under § 2255. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d at
208. In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 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 sufficient to establish that no
reasonable fact finder would have found the movant guilty. 28
U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Hawkins does not satisfy
either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize the
filing of a successive § 2255 motion. We grant the motion to file
an amended brief and 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 -