United States of America v. Myrna Josephine Holt Wilson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7945
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MYRNA JOSEPHINE HOLT WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:06-cv-00605; 7:98-00091-sgw)
Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 5, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Myrna Josephine Holt Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Burnham,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Myrna Josephine Holt Wilson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing her motion for relief of sentence as a
motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and then
dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized
successive motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order
in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion
solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will
not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and
(2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing.
See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
Finally, in accordance with United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Wilson’s notice of
appeal and informal brief as a motion for authorization under 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (2000), to file a successive habeas corpus motion.
To obtain permission to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion,

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
a movant must show that her claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of
constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review
by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or (2)
relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the
movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. We conclude that Wilson has
not satisfied either standard.
Accordingly, we deny Wilson’s implicit application for
leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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 --