US v. Morton, No. 05-7887 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7887 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY LAMAR MORTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-242; CA-05-470) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 23, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Lamar Morton, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Troy Lamar Morton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which the district court construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). 28 A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Morton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Morton s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). - 2 - In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, 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 that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder petitioner guilty of the offense. would have found the 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Morton s claims do not satisfy either of these conditions. We therefore 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
