UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6150
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY A. BLAGROVE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:95-cr-00052-RGD)
Submitted: April 4, 2007 Decided: April 23, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony A. Blagrove, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Blagrove appeals the district court’s order
denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United
States v. Blagrove, No. 2:95-cr-00052-RGD (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 26,
2006; entered Dec. 27, 2006).
Additionally, we construe Blagrove’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 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, not previously
discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the
movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255
(2000). Blagrove’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.
Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255
motion.
- 2 -
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.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -