UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7790
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMMY ALLEN RICE, a/k/a Timothy A. Rice,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:90-cr-00310-GRA-4; 7:13-cv-02056-GRA)
Submitted: March 28, 2014 Decided: April 10, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timmy Allen Rice, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timmy Allen Rice seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
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 procedural grounds, as in this
case, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating both
that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the
motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a
constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85
(2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Rice has not made the requisite showing. The district
court lacked jurisdiction to consider Rice’s motion to vacate
because it was a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion. In
the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court, the
district court lacks 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
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3