UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7973
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GONZALES MARCH, a/k/a Gun, a/k/a Gon,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00590-CMC-6)
Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gonzales March, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Stanley D.
Ragsdale, Julius Ness Richardson, John David Rowell, Assistant
United States Attorneys, James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gonzales March seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an
unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and
dismissing it on that basis and denying his motion to alter or
amend the order. 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 March 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 March’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). March’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