US v. Orrie Coker, No. 08-6090 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6090 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ORRIE COKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:00-cr-00997-SB-3) Submitted: March 21, 2008 Decided: April 10, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orrie Coker, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Orrie Coker seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying it for want of jurisdiction. 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 absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Coker s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). United States v. Winestock, 340 In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims - 2 - 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, not previously discoverable establish by by due clear diligence, and that convincing would be evidence sufficient that, but to for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. (2000). 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 Coker 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 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.
