US v. Robert Legette, No. 14-6161 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT ANDRE LEGETTE, a/k/a Base, a/k/a Andre Legette, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-01370-TLW-1; 4:11-cv-70064-TLW) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Andre Legette, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Andre Legette seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion attacking his sentence, which constituted a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). not issue absent a constitutional right. A certificate of appealability will substantial showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Legette has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 We have construed Legette s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. 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). these criteria. Legette s claims do not satisfy either of Therefore, successive § 2255 motion. we deny authorization to file a We deny Legette s motion to place this case in abeyance or to remand it. 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.
