UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7452
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL CASSANOVA DYSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00021-FPS-JES-6; 5:11-cv-
00017-FPS-JES)
Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Cassanova Dyson, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Cassanova Dyson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
relief from the court’s prior judgment * in light of Alleyne v.
United States, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). The order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
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) (2012). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling in debatable, and that the motion states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
*
The Rule 60(b) motion was filed in Dyson’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) post-conviction proceeding, in which Dyson sought
relief from his sentence.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Dyson has not made the requisite showing. The district
court lacked jurisdiction to deny Dyson’s Rule 60(b) motion on
the merits because the claim he raised challenged the validity
of his sentence, and thus the motion should have been construed
as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 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) (2012).
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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3