UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7300
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEREMY MOUZON, a/k/a Ferris Earl Scott Green,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:03-cr-00896-PMD-1; 2:07-cv-70041-PMD)
Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy Mouzon, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeremy Mouzon seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying (1) his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s prior denial of relief
on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion and (2) his
motion to alter or amend. The orders are not appealable unless
a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone,
369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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)
(2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Mouzon has not made the requisite showing. The district
court lacked jurisdiction to deny Mouzon’s Rule 60(b) motion on
the merits because the claim he raises challenges the validity
of his sentence and thus should have been construed as a
successive § 2255 motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524,
2
531-32 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b)
motion from an unauthorized second or successive habeas corpus
petition); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th
Cir. 2003) (same). In the absence of pre-filing authorization
from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear
a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
3