UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8145
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
VINCENT CONSTANTINE HUTCHINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:00-cr-00253-TSE-1; 1:08-cv-00442-TSE)
Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vincent Constantine Hutchins, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph
Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Constantine Hutchins seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
for reconsideration of the district court’s 2009 order denying
relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012). 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);
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 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 Hutchins has not made the requisite showing.
To the extent that Hutchins’ Rule 60(b) motion attacks
his underlying conviction, it constitutes an unauthorized
2
successive § 2255 motion over which the district court lacked
jurisdiction. Pursuant to our holding in United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe
Hutchins’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application
to file a second or successive motion. In order to obtain
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner
must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered
evidence that would be sufficient to establish, by clear and
convincing evidence, that 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)(1)-(2). Hutchins’ claims do not satisfy either of
these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
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