UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6599
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WINDELL LONG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:02-cr-01281-TLW-1)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Windell Long, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Windell Long seeks to appeal the district court’s
order treating his motion for reconsideration filed under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59 (e) & 60(b) as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2010) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The
district court found that Long’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion was
untimely. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Long, No. 4:02-cr-01281-TLW-1
(D.S.C. Sept. 25, 2009; Feb. 22, 2010). To the extent the
motion for reconsideration was an attempt to file a successive
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion, Long did not receive authorization
from this court. Therefore, additionally, we construe Long’s
notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a
second or successive § 2255 motion. 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) 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
2
review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2010). Long’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.
AFFIRMED
3