UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7401
DAVID CAESAR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(0:12-cv-00316-MGL)
Submitted: March 26, 2014 Decided: April 3, 2014
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Caesar, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Caesar seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as unauthorized and successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2012) petition. Caesar also 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 petition, and dismissing it on that
basis. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Caesar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Caesar’s notice of appeal as
to the district court’s denial of relief on his Rule 60(b)
motion 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) (2012). Caesar’s 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3