UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7824
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WENDELL EDWARD BETANCOURT, a/k/a Shawn Nelson, a/k/a Fire,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:01-cr-00025-JPB-JES-5; 3:12-cv-00083-
JPB-JES)
Submitted: January 30, 2013 Decided: February 7, 2013
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wendell Edward Betancourt, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas
Camilletti, Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wendell Edward Betancourt seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying and dismissing his successive 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion 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 Betancourt has not made the required showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Betancourt’s notice of
appeal, informal brief, and supplemental informal brief as an
2
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).
Betancourt’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
3