USCA4 Appeal: 23-6660 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6660 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

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

motion,

the court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability.

(c)(1)(B). See generally United States v. McRae,

, 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.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(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,

, 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

(b)(3),

2255(h).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6660 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 3 of 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