UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7906
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:97-cr-00001-RLV-1; 5:13-cv-00132-
RLV)
Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014
Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sean Lamont Dudley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Higdon, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sean Lamont Dudley seeks to appeal the district
court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a
successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
dismissing it on that basis, as well as its order denying his
motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 Dudley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2
Additionally, we construe Dudley’s notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. See 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, which 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.
§ 2255(h). Dudley’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