UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7773
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONNIE BOWMAN, a/k/a Young,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:01-cr-00349-CMC-1; 3:05-cv-00677-CMC)
Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: February 25, 2013
Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Anne Hunter
Young, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Bowman seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) entitled
“Independent Action in Equity. * The order is 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).
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 Bowman has not made the
*
Because Bowman’s Rule 60(b) motion directly attacked his
conviction, it was, in essence, an unauthorized and successive
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion over which the
district court lacked jurisdiction. United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003).
2
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Bowman’s notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. 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). Bowman’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