UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7580
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FELIX ORIAKHI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (1:90-cr-00072-PJM-12)
Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Felix Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Felix Oriakhi seeks to appeal the district court’s
order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, 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)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Oriakhi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
2
Additionally, we construe Oriakhi’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 that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (2012). Oriakhi’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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3