UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6155
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EMMANUEL UZUEGBUNAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:96-cr-00043-REP; 3:06-cv-00015-REP)
Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 8, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Gerald McBride,
WILEY, REIN & FIELDING, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Uzuegbunam seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing as a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000), his motion to recall the district court’s order previously
dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and then
dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized
successive motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order
in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion
solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will
not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and
(2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Uzuegbunam has not made the requisite
showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
Finally, in accordance with United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Uzuegbunam’s notice
of appeal and informal brief as a motion for authorization under 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (2000), to file a successive habeas corpus motion.
- 2 -
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)
relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the
movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. We conclude that Uzuegbunam
has not satisfied either standard.
Accordingly, we deny Uzuegbunam’s implicit application
for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, deny his motion for
a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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 -