United States v. Marfo

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRANK MARFO, Defendant…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 23, 2019

No. 19-6728 (4th Cir. Jul. 23, 2019)

Opinion

No. 19-6728

07-23-2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRANK MARFO, Defendant - Appellant.

Frank Marfo, Appellant Pro Se. James Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00657-MJG-3; 1:15-cv-01940-MJG) Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Marfo, Appellant Pro Se. James Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Frank Marfo appeals 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. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Marfo, No. 1:11-cr-00657-MJG-3 (D. Md. Apr. 17, 2019). We deny Marfo's motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary. See Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 194 (2009); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 398-400 (4th Cir. 2015).

Additionally, we construe Marfo's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a 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). Marfo's 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED