UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7970
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
QUINTON LEON SUTTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-98-355; CA-04-933-1)
Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Quinton Leon Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Quinton Leon Sutton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and denying relief on Sutton’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)
and 60(b) motion that the court construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the district
court’s order 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 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 Sutton has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Sutton’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Sutton’s notice of appeal and
informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
- 2 -
200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995 (2003). 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). Sutton’s claim does not satisfy
either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize
Sutton 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 -