US v. Eugene Cousins, No. 14-6965 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6965 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. EUGENE ROSS COUSINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00008-GEC-1; 5:14-cv-80742-GEC-RSB) Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Ross Cousins, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia; Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Plaintiff. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eugene Ross Cousins seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. justice or The judge order is issues a not appealable certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of unless a circuit appealability. 28 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) (2012). 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 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 Cousins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, and informal brief as we an construe Cousins application 2 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. Cousins claims do not satisfy 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.
