US v. Cedric Little, No. 12-7888 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7888 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CEDRIC MONTE LITTLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:05-cr-00050-H-1; 4:12-cv-00182-H) Submitted: February 21, 2013 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Circuit Decided: Judges, and February 26, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cedric Monte Little, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cedric court s order § 2255 (West a from seeks without 2012) this circuit appealability. Little dismissing Supp. authorization unless Monte justice or appeal prejudice motion court. to as the his district 28 U.S.C.A. and without successive The is not issues judge order a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealable of 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) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Little has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, and informal brief as we an construe Little s application 2 to notice file a of appeal second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: discoverable establish by by (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously due clear diligence, and that convincing would be evidence sufficient that, but to for constitutional error, 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. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2012). either of these criteria. 28 U.S.C.A. Little 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 this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3