United States of America v. Tyrone Young

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6660
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TYRONE YOUNG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Danville. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (4:18-cr-00017-JPJ-1)
Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 5, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone Young, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion styled
as a motion to supplement his fourth motion for reconsideration. Because Young sought
reconsideration of the court’s previous order denying his third 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,
the 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). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d
392, 399-400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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
the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017).
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. 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 Young has not made
the requisite showing. Because the claims Young raised challenged the validity of his
convictions, his motion to supplement should have been construed as a successive § 2255
motion. See Bixby v. Stirling, __ F.4th __, __, No. 22-4, 2024 WL 85060, at *5-10 (4th Cir.
Jan. 5, 2024). In the absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the district court
lacked jurisdiction to consider a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3),
2255(h).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Young’s motion for
appointment of counsel, grant his motions for leave to file supplemental informal briefs
asserting the claims he wished to raise on appeal, and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --