US v. Sean Dudley, No. 12-7927 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7927 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cv-00152-RLV; 5:97-cr-00001RLV-1) Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Lamont Dudley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sean Lamont Dudley seeks to appeal the district court s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief of judgment as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and denying it on its merits. Because Dudley s motion was a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h); In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997), the district court was obligated to dismiss the motion, see United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003), and the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688-89 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 2 a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. conclude We that have independently Dudley has not reviewed made the the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, and informal brief we as an to motion, obtain a (1) newly application authorization prisoner discovered Dudley s to notice file a of appeal second See Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. successive § 2255 motion. order construe must to assert evidence, not file a successive claims based previously on or In § 2255 either: discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but 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. not satisfy 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h). either of these criteria. Dudley s claims do 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