US v. Louis Bryant, No. 13-7859 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7859 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LOUIS ANTONIO Stacks, BRYANT, a/k/a Tinio, a/k/a Black, a/k/a B Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00047-NKM-RSB-1; 3:13-cv-80668NKM) Submitted: February 11, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014 Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis Antonio Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Louis Antonio Bryant seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for reconsideration, denying as moot his motion to compel and treating his Addendum to § 2255 as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it for lack of authorization from this court. We affirm that part of the district court s order denying reconsideration and denying as moot the motion to compel on the reasoning Bryant, Nos. of the district court. 3:04-cr-00047-NKM-RSB-1; United States 3:13-cv-80668-NKM v. (W.D. Va. Oct. 29, 2013). That part of the district court s order denying the Addendum to § 2255 as a second or successive § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims 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 2 prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bryant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, and informal brief we as construe an Bryant s application 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: (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, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (2012). either of these criteria. Bryant 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 contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 4
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.
