US v. Dwayne Clark, No. 08-8207 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8207 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DWAYNE IVIN CLARK, a/k/a Bill, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:96-cr-00192-WDQ-1) Submitted: July 15, 2009 Decided: July 22, 2009 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne Ivin Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dwayne Ivin Clark 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. 2009) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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. this 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). standard by demonstrating that A prisoner satisfies 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. record and conclude showing. 2001). that We have Clark independently has not made reviewed the the requisite Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Clark s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. United States v. Winestock, 2003). 2 In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims evidence, not would based sufficient be evidence that, previously but to for on either: discoverable establish (1) newly by by due clear constitutional error, discovered diligence, that and convincing 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). either of these criteria. Clark s claims do not satisfy Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
