UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7209
GREGORY A. RICHARDSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JACK LEE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 03-7240
GREGORY A. RICHARDSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JACK LEE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 03-7455
GREGORY A. RICHARDSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JACK LEE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CA-02-316-3; CA-02-316)
Submitted: March 9, 2005 Decided: May 6, 2005
Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Gregory A. Richardson seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions seeking
reconsideration of the court’s order denying Richardson’s habeas
corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The orders
are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 (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. 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 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite
showing. We therefore deny Richardson a certificate of
appealability, deny his motions for appointment of counsel and
“summary judgment,” and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Richardson’s notices of appeal
and informal briefs on appeal as applications to file a second or
successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See United
- 3 -
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 § 2254 petition, 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) (2000). Richardson’s claims do
not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to
authorize Richardson to file a successive § 2254 petition. 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 -