UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6443
LOUIS ENGLISH FULLER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLIDGE, Warden MCCI,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
HENRY MCMASTER, AG,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(0:09-cv-01352-RBH)
Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis English Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Louis English Fuller seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing in part his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and
dismissing it on that basis, and denying relief in part. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
(2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Fuller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2
Additionally, we construe Fuller’s notice of appeal
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). Fuller’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