US v. Sean Dudley, No. 13-7906 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7906 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown,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. (5:97-cr-00001-RLV-1; 5:13-cv-00132RLV) Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014 Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Lamont Dudley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it on that basis, as well as its order denying his motion for unless a reconsideration. circuit appealability. justice The or orders judge are issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). not appealable certificate of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2012). 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 both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must 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 Dudley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 Additionally, and informal brief we as construe an successive § 2255 motion. application file claims a successive based previously on file a of appeal second or In order to obtain authorization § 2255 either: discoverable to notice See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). to Dudley s motion, (1) newly by due a prisoner discovered diligence, must assert evidence, which would not 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). of criteria. Dudley s claims do not satisfy either these 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
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.
