US v. Vincent Hutchins, No. 12-8145 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8145 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. VINCENT CONSTANTINE HUTCHINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:00-cr-00253-TSE-1; 1:08-cv-00442-TSE) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Constantine Hutchins, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vincent Constantine Hutchins seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court s 2009 order denying relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012). not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, A certificate of 369 justice or The order is judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006); F.3d 363, appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. issue 2004). 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 that U.S. 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 a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. We have independently reviewed record and conclude that Hutchins has not made the requisite showing. To the extent that Hutchins Rule 60(b) motion attacks his underlying conviction, it 2 constitutes an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion over which the district court lacked jurisdiction. Pursuant Winestock, F.3d 340 to 200, our 208 holding (4th in Cir. United 2003), States we v. construe Hutchins notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion. In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that would be sufficient to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that 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)(1)-(2). these criteria. 28 U.S.C.A. Hutchins claims do not satisfy either of Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, and dismiss the appeal. we deny a certificate of appealability We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
