UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6588
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT EDWARD SILLS, a/k/a Bobby,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:03-cr-00148-AWA-5)
Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 26, 2014
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Robert Edward Sills, Appellant Pro Se. Randy Carl Stoker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Edward Sills seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion and denying his request for a sentence reduction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012). Insofar as Sills appeals the
court’s dismissal, 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). 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 Sills has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss in part the
appeal.
2
Additionally, we construe Sills’ 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) (2012). Sills’ claims do not satisfy either
of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion.
Insofar as Sills appeals from the denial of his
request for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c), we affirm.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,
dismiss in part and affirm in part the appeal. 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 IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART
3