UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6092
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
COLEMAN LEAKE JOHNSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (3:00-cr-00026-nkm; 7:06-cv-00624-nkm)
Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 3, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Coleman Leake Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack
Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Coleman Leake Johnson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an
unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying
his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that
ruling. These 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, 369 (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 any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Johnson’s notice of appeal and
informal brief 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
- 2 -
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). Johnson’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.
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 -