Marlon Bramwell v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 4th Cir. 2004 . A certificate of…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7093
MARLON BRAMWELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
B.G. COMPTON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(CA-04-230-7)
Submitted: November 4, 2004 Decided: November 9, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marlon Bramwell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Marlon Bramwell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order construing
his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) as a motion to
vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying it
as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69,
374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that
any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Bramwell has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, deny Bramwell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Bramwell’s notice of appeal and
informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). In order
to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a
prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of
constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the
Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) 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. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2),
2255 (2000). Bramwell’s claims do not satisfy either of these
conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Bramwell to file a
successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --