US v. Darrell Samuel, No. 08-7619 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7619 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRELL W. SAMUEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:94-cr-00773-JFA-1) Submitted: January 14, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell W. Samuel, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Todd Hagins, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darrell W. Samuel seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. He also appeals the court s order granting his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2006). The order denying his Rule 60(b) motion as successive is not appealable unless a circuit justice certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, certificate of 369 F.3d or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. issue 2004). A absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2006). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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). conclude We have Samuel has independently not made reviewed the the requisite record and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal from court s denial of Samuel s Rule 60(b) motion. 2 Additionally, and informal brief we as an construe Samuel s application to notice file successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. a authorization to file a successive prisoner must assert claims based on either: appeal second or United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). obtain of In order to § 2255 motion, a (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 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. 2008). 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (West 2006 & Supp. Samuel s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. In addition, we find the district did not abuse its discretion granting Samuel s motion for a sentence reduction. United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d (stating standard of review). 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) Insofar as Samuel suggests the court could have considered an even lower sentence below the Guidelines sentencing range, this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Dunphy, __ F.3d __, 2009 WL 19139, *8 (4th Cir. 2009) 3 ( [A] district judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant s sentence below the amended guideline range. ). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal from the order denying the Rule 60(b) motion and reduction. documents. legal before we We affirm also deny order granting Samuel s motion Samuel for a sentence production of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 4
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.
