UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6384
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM HAZEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (2:92-cr-00163-1; 2:14-cv-00113-REP)
Submitted: September 17, 2015 Decided: October 1, 2015
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Curtis Bosse, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Hazel appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and conclude that
Hazel’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)” motion, but in
substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United States v.
McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2015); see also
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005) (explaining how
to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized
successive habeas corpus motion). Therefore, we conclude that
Hazel is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability
to appeal the district court’s order. See McRae, 793 F.3d at
400. However, in the absence of prefiling authorization, the
district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Hazel’s successive
§ 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s order. 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.
AFFIRMED
2