IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JOHN D. O’NEILL, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:25¢v946 WARDEN KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION John D. O’Neill, a Virginia inmate, brings this this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court for the City of Hampton. (See ECF No. 1, at 1.) The Court has previously denied a § 2254 petition attacking these convictions. O’Neill v. Dir., Va. Dep't. of Corr., No. 3:10CV157,

, at *1—-12 (E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2011). 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,

(1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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 of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”

(b)(3)(A). The Court has not received authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file the present § 2254 Petition. Therefore, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability (“COA”).

(c)(1)(A). A COA will not issue unless a prisoner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

, 893 n.4 (1983)). Because O’Neill fails to satisfy this standard, a certificate of appealability will be DENIED. An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

; / Date: 1 | 15/3045 fe > Richmond, Virginia Chief United States' District Judge