US v. Willis Haynes, No. 09-7606 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7606 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIS MARK HAYNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:98-cr-00520-PJM-1; 8:02-cv-03850-PJM) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willis Mark Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Willis Mark Haynes seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of his the order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 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). issue absent constitutional prisoner a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 this by U.S.C. find the of the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing that district by any of (2006). demonstrating assessment court is a A that of debatable the 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 Haynes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Haynes 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 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. Haynes 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.
