UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7223
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRIAN JAMES BRONSON, a/k/a Little B,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00249-D-1; 5:12-cv-00467-D)
Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian James Bronson, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North
Carolina; William Ellis Boyle, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Michael Gordon James,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brian James Bronson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as time-barred Bronson’s second 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. * The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
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 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 Bronson has not made the requisite showing. Bronson’s
motion, which challenged the validity of his career offender
*
Alternatively, the district court ruled that Bronson’s
motion was barred by the waiver-of-rights provision included in
his plea agreement.
2
sentence, should have been deemed a successive § 2255 motion.
And in the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court,
the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the
timeliness of this successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3) (2006). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3