United States of America v. Lance Richardson Pagan

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7452
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LANCE RICHARDSON PAGAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00258-RJC-8)
Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 20, 2018
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lance Richardson Pagan, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Lance Richardson Pagan seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying his
motion to dismiss the indictment. We conclude that Pagan’s motion was in substance a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the
merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner
must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the
motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at
484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pagan has not made
the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to deny § 2255 relief on the
merits because Pagan’s motion challenged the validity of his conviction and should have
been construed as a successive § 2255 motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524,
531–32 (2005); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). In the
absence of pre-filing authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to
hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We deny Pagan’s motion for a bill of particulars and 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.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --