US v. Thomas Smith, Jr., No. 09-7327 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7327 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THOMAS E. SMITH, JR., a/k/a Anthony Young, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-01135-TSE; 1:03-cr-00245-TSE-1) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas E. Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas E. Smith, Jr., 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 dismissing it on that basis. * a circuit justice appealability. 369 F.3d 363, or (West Supp. 2009) motion, and The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * The district court s finding that Smith s motion merely reiterated the claims raised in his original § 2255 was tantamount to a finding that the motion for reconsideration was a successive motion. 2 Additionally, we construe Smith 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). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims evidence, not would based sufficient be evidence previously that, but to for on either: discoverable establish (1) newly by by due diligence, clear constitutional discovered that and error, 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. 2009). claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Smith s 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.
