UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7590
DELONTE KINGSBERRY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:12-cv-01556-AW)
Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Delonte Kingsberry, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Delonte Kingsberry seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s 2007 order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
To the extent Kingsberry’s motion is a true Rule 60(b)
motion, the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); 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) (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. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Kingsberry has not made the requisite showing.
2
To the extent that Kingsberry intended his Rule 60(b)
motion to function as a request for authorization to file a
successive § 2254 petition, we deny the request. 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). Kingsberry’s
claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we
deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss 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
3