Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    United States v. Joseph Sprague, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Joseph Mason Sprague's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive §2255 motion. The court also denied Sprague's motion for a certificate of appealability. Additionally, the court construed Sprague's notice of appeal and brief as an application to file a second or successive §2255 motion, but denied authorization because Sprague's claims did not satisfy the criteria of newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Joseph Sprague, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    60 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Joseph Mason Sprague's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive §2255 motion. The court also denied Sprague's motion for a certificate of appealability. Additionally, the court construed Sprague's notice of appeal and brief as an application to file a second or successive §2255 motion, but denied authorization because Sprague's claims did not satisfy the criteria of newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-02-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-7342

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Joseph Mason Sprague's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive §2255 motion. The court also denied Sprague's motion for a certificate of appealability. Additionally, the court construed Sprague's notice of appeal and brief as an application to file a second or successive §2255 motion, but denied authorization because Sprague's claims did not satisfy the criteria of newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    60 views3 pages

    United States v. Joseph Sprague, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Joseph Mason Sprague's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive §2255 motion. The court also denied Sprague's motion for a certificate of appealability. Additionally, the court construed Sprague's notice of appeal and brief as an application to file a second or successive §2255 motion, but denied authorization because Sprague's claims did not satisfy the criteria of newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-7342

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOSEPH MASON SPRAGUE, a/k/a Joseph Mason Hammond,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (7:04-cr-00029-HMH-1; 7:06-cv-01865-HMH)

    Submitted:

    February 23, 2012

    Decided:

    February 27, 2012

    Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Joseph Mason Sprague, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph

    Mason

    Sprague

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a


    successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
    motion,

    and

    has

    appealability.
    unless

    filed

    motion

    for

    certificate

    of

    The district courts order is not appealable

    circuit

    appealability.

    justice

    or

    judge

    issues

    certificate

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

    of

    A certificate

    of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of


    the denial of a constitutional right.
    (2006).

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

    When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    jurists

    would

    reasonable

    standard
    find

    by

    that

    demonstrating

    the

    district

    that

    courts

    assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.


    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see MillerEl v.
    Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 33638 (2003).
    denies

    relief

    demonstrate

    both

    on

    procedural

    that

    the

    When the district court

    grounds,

    dispositive

    the

    prisoner

    procedural

    ruling

    must
    is

    debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the


    denial of a constitutional right.
    We

    have

    independently

    reviewed

    the

    Slack, 529 U.S. at 48485.


    record

    Sprague has not made the requisite showing.

    and

    conclude

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    that

    Additionally, we construe Spragues notice of appeal


    and

    informal

    brief

    as

    an

    application

    to

    file

    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:
    discoverable
    establish

    by

    by

    (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously


    due

    diligence,

    clear

    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;

    or

    (2)

    new

    rule

    of

    constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by


    the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A.
    2255(h) (West Supp. 2011).
    either of these criteria.

    Spragues 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
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like