United States v. Stephen Washington

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7531

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

STEPHEN J. WASHINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00068-TSE-1; 1:12-cv-00650-TSE)

Submitted: January 2, 2013 Decided: January 10, 2013

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen J. Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Kara Martin Traster,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Stephen J. Washington seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2012) motion as successive and denying his motion for

reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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 Washington has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.

2
Additionally, we construe Washington’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, 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 movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by

the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2012). Washington’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