MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion)
HENRY E. HUDSON, District Judge.
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on July 15, 1999, the Court denied a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Juleen Brown. (ECF Nos. 172-73). On July 5, 2013, the Court received from Brown another successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. (ECF No. 267.)
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 restricted the jurisdiction of the district courts to hear second or successive applications for federal habeas corpus relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions and sentences by establishing a "gatekeeping' mechanism." Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996). Specifically, "[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court or appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
The Court has not received authorization from the Fourth Circuit to hear Brown's successive § 2255 Motion. Accordingly, the § 2255 Motion (ECF No. 267) will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
An appeal may not he taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(8). A COA will not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § a 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) ...