UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6815
TERRANCE L. JAMES-BEY, Sovereign,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; UNITED STATES CORPORATION,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cv-00136-RJC)
Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrance Lamount James, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terrance James-Bey seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition and denying a certificate of appealability. He 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 (2006)
petition, and dismissing it on that basis. The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
(2006). 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) (2006). 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 James-Bey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe James-Bey’s 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) (2006). James-Bey’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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3