UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6849
ALEXANDER CAMERON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cv-01346-JCC-IDD)
Submitted: September 22, 2009 Decided: October 6, 2009
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander Cameron, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Cameron seeks to appeal the district court’s
order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and dismissing it on that
basis. 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 Cameron has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Cameron’s notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or
successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to
2
obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, 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 petitioner guilty of
the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2006). Cameron’s claims
do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny
authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.
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