UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6161
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT ANDRE LEGETTE, a/k/a Base, a/k/a Andre Legette,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:09-cr-01370-TLW-1; 4:11-cv-70064-TLW)
Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Andre Legette, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Andre Legette seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion attacking
his sentence, which constituted a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200,
206 (4th Cir. 2003). 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d
363, 370 (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 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 Legette has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2
We have construed Legette’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. 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). Legette’s claims do not satisfy either of
these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion. We deny Legette’s motion to place
this case in abeyance or to remand it. 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