UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8475
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROBERT HENRY DAVIS, a/k/a Pops,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:00-cr-00424-PJM-2; 8:08-cv-02777-PJM)
Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Henry Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Henry Davis seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as
successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2006 &
Supp. 2008) motions, and dismissing them on that basis. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2006); 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) (2006). 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 Davis has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we grant Davis’s motion to supplement his appeal,
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Davis’s notice of appeal,
informal brief, and motion to supplement as an application to
file a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States
2
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 (2006). Davis’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