UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6146
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RODNEY EDWARD WALL, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:99-24-9, a/k/a Big
Rodney,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:99-cr-00024-FDW-9)
Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 29, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Edward Wall, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Edward Wall seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking
reconsideration of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008)
motion. The order is 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 Wall has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Wall’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
2
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner
must assert claims based on either: (1) 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; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable,
made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral
review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2008). Wall’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