UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8047
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DWAYNE ALTWAN LANGFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:07-cr-00013-HMH-1; 8:10-cv-70237-HMH)
Submitted: April 16, 2013 Decided: April 24, 2013
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwayne Altwan Langford, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Howard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Altwan Langford seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking
relief from an order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2012) motion. Because the Rule 60(b) motion directly attacked
Langford’s conviction, the district court was without
jurisdiction to consider the motion, which was, in essence, a
successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion. See United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003).
The district court’s 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)
(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.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Langford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Langford’s notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. See 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) (West Supp. 2012).
Langford’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