UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7942
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES NEAL, III, a/k/a Sonny,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 04-7946
JAMES NEAL, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-94-27; CA-96-1624-0)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Neal, III, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
James Neal, III, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s orders denying relief on his motions filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) and Fed R. Crim. P. 12(b), which
the district court construed as successive motions under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000), and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The orders
are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see
Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (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 the district court’s assessment
of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are
debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Neal has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Neal’s motion for
certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals.
Additionally, we construe Neal’s notices 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
- 3 -
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 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)(2),
2255 (2000). Neal’s claims do not satisfy either of these
conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Neal 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 -