Gary Boone v. Warden, USP Lee County, No. 11-6872 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Affirmed
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6872 GARY DEAN BOONE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, USP LEE COUNTY, Respondent Appellee, and H. J. MARBERRY, Warden; STATES OF AMERICA, WARDEN, FCI, ALLENWOOD; UNITED Respondents. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:11-cv-00204-SGW) Submitted: December 13, 2011 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 30, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Dean Boone, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary Dean Boone appeals the district court s orders denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Boone v. Warden, USP Lee County, No. 7:11-cv-00204-SGW (W.D. Va. May 5, 2011; May 25, 2011). Additionally, we construe Boone s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 808 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). obtain authorization prisoner must discovered to assert evidence, file claims not a successive based on previously In order to § 2255 motion, either: a (1) newly discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h). not of satisfy either these criteria. Boone s claims do Therefore, authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 2 we deny Accordingly, we affirm. place the appeal in abeyance. We deny Boone s motion to We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
