United States of America v. Anthony Gene Trappier

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6882
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY GENE TRAPPIER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:09-cr-00340-TLW-1; 4:21-cv-02513-TLW)
Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Gene Trappier, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Gene Trappier seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as
successive and unauthorized Trappier’s motions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. We affirm in part and deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss in
part.
The district court’s determination that Trappier’s § 2255 motion was successive and
unauthorized is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v.
Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Trappier has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal in part.
We agree with the district court that Trappier’s Rule 60 motions amounted to
successive § 2255 motions for which this court did not grant prefiling authorization as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244. And, to the extent that Trappier’s Rule 60 motions attacked
the integrity of his habeas proceedings, we agree with the district court that the motions
were untimely and, in any event, meritless. We therefore affirm those holdings. See, e.g.,
United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that this court “need

-- 2 of 3 --

3
not issue a [certificate of appealability] before determining whether the district court erred
in dismissing [a defendant’s] purported Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive
habeas petition”).
Additionally, we construe Trappier’s notice of appeal and appellate brief as a motion
to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), abrogated in part on other grounds by McRae, 793 F.3d 392. In
order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert
claims based on either: (1) a new, previously unavailable rule of constitutional law, made
retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered
evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient
to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Because Trappier’s claims
do not satisfy either of these criteria, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255
motion.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the appeal in part and deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss in part. 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 IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --