UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6215
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREGORY ALLEN MILTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-95-74; CA-00-31-7)
Submitted: June 27, 2005 Decided: July 28, 2005
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Allen Milton, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gregory A. Milton seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying as successive his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
seeking reconsideration of the court’s order denying relief on his
motion for post-conviction relief filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000), denying his motion to alter or amend judgment, and denying
his motion for additional findings. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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 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. 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 Milton has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny Milton’s motions to place his appeal
in abeyance as moot, deny Milton’s motion requesting leave to file
a supplemental informal brief, deny a certificate of appealability,
and dismiss the appeal.
- 2 -
Additionally, we construe Milton’s notice of appeal and
informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 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
petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255
(2000). Milton’s claims do not satisfy either of these conditions.
Therefore, we deny 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
- 3 -