Scribd
Upload
26 views3 pages

United States v. Pleasant, 4th Cir. (2007)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Jeffrey Pleasant's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and denial of a certificate of appealability. The appellate court determined that Pleasant did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also construed the notice of appeal as a request to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which was denied because Pleasant's claims did not satisfy the statutory criteria for such a motion.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
26 views3 pages

United States v. Pleasant, 4th Cir. (2007)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Jeffrey Pleasant's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and denial of a certificate of appealability. The appellate court determined that Pleasant did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court also construed the notice of appeal as a request to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which was denied because Pleasant's claims did not satisfy the statutory criteria for such a motion.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7028

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, aka Jeffrey A. Pleasants,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:00-cr-00071-REP; 3:06-cv-00366-REP)

Submitted:

December 13, 2007

Decided:

December 19, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.


Stephen Wiley Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district courts
order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28
U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000);

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of


the denial of a constitutional right.
(2000).

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable

jurists

would

find

that

any

assessment

of

the

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong


and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is
likewise debatable.

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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Pleasant has not made the
requisite showing.
certificate

of

Accordingly, we deny Pleasants motion for a

appealability,

deny

Pleasants

motion

for

appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal.


Additionally, we construe Pleasants notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255.
F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).

United States v. Winestock, 340

In order to obtain authorization to

- 2 -

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, not previously
discoverable
establish

by

by

due

clear

diligence,
and

that

convincing

would

be

evidence

sufficient
that,

but

to
for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the


movant guilty of the offense.

28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Pleasants claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.


Therefore, we deny authorization 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 -

You might also like