UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7787
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER DAMON SPENCER, a/k/a Dog,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00030-RBS-FBS-1)
Submitted: September 28, 2015 Decided: October 14, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Damon Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott
Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Damon Spencer appeals the denial of his motion
for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b).
This motion raised challenges to Spencer’s conviction and
sentence as well as to the adjudication of his prior 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion. The district court found that Spencer’s
challenges to the § 2255 proceedings were meritless and that, to
the extent Spencer’s motion challenged his conviction and
sentence, that motion was a successive § 2255 petition that the
district court lacked jurisdiction to hear. See United States
v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003).
“[W]hen a motion presents claims subject to the
requirements for successive applications as well as claims
cognizable under Rule 60(b), the district court should afford
the applicant an opportunity to elect between deleting the
improper claims or having the entire motion treated as a
successive application.” United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392,
400 (4th Cir. 2015) (brackets and internal quotation marks
omitted). Because the district court, which did not have the
benefit of our decision in McRae, did not afford Spencer such an
opportunity here, we vacate its order and remand the case for
further proceedings consistent with McRae. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3