UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6242
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FENCEL O’HARA MARTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (2:88-cr-00076-JCC-JF)
Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 23, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fencel O’Hara Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Fencel O’Hara Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion filed under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2000), which the court construed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the
district court are also 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 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Martin
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Martin’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
- 2 -
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). Martin’s claims do not satisfy either of these conditions.
We therefore 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 -