Opinion
Case No. 4:06-cr-00009-2
05-09-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CURTIS DARYLE TINSLEY, Petitioner.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Curtis Daryle Tinsley, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on a recent change in case law. Court records indicate that the court already dismissed (Dkt. No. 187) a prior § 2255 motion (Dkt. No. 166). Thus, the § 2255 motion is a second or subsequent motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). See, e.g., United States v. Hairston, 754 F.3d 258, 262 (4th Cir. 2014).
The court may consider a second or successive § 2255 motion only upon specific certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that a claim in the motion meets certain criteria. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). As Petitioner has not submitted any evidence of having obtained certification from the Court of Appeals to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, the court dismisses the § 2255 motion without prejudice as successive. Based upon the court's finding that Petitioner has not made the requisite substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), a certificate of appealability is denied.
ENTER: This 9th day of May, 2016.
/s/_________
Senior United States District Judge