UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7760
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE HORTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-7863
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE HORTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-7966
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE HORTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CR-89-180; CA-05-1166)
Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Horton, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Sue Straus, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Willie Horton seeks to appeal three district court orders
dismissing as untimely his three motions filed pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b). 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 ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.
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, 684 (4th Cir.
2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Horton has not made the requisite showing.
Finally, in accordance with United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Horton’s notices of
appeal and informal brief as a motion for authorization under 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (2000), to file a successive habeas corpus motion.
To obtain permission to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion,
a movant must show that his claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of
constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review
by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or (2)
- 3 -
relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the
movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. We conclude that Horton has
not satisfied either standard.
Accordingly, we deny Horton’s implicit application for
leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, deny his motions for the
appointment of counsel filed in Appeal Nos. 05-7760 and 05-7863,
deny Horton’s motions for a certificate of appealability, and
dismiss the appeals. 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 -