US v. Rodney Wall, No. 09-6146 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6146 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RODNEY EDWARD Rodney, WALL, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:99-24-9, a/k/a Big Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00024-FDW-9) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 29, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Edward Wall, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rodney Edward Wall seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration motion. judge of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a § 2253(c)(1) certificate (2006); (4th Cir. 2004). Reid of v. appealability. Angelone, 369 28 F.3d U.S.C. 363, 369 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 Wall independently has not made reviewed the the requisite Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Wall s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 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 diligence, clear constitutional discovered error, 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) (West Supp. 2008). do not satisfy either of these criteria. Wall s claims 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.
