UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7465
JAMES EARL JONES,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
LORETTA KELLY, Warden,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00066-CMH-BRP)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Earl Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Earl Jones 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). When the district court
denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard
by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.
2
Additionally, we construe Jones’ notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2254 petition. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003). In order to 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). Jones’ 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