UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6172
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RONALD DAWSON, a/k/a Tree,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00061-FL-1; 5:08-cv-00298-FL)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Dawson, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Dawson seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) and 60(b) in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)
proceeding. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Dawson has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.
2
Additionally, we construe Dawson’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 review. 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2010). Dawson’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