UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6959
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COURTNEY OMAR BOYD, a/k/a Omar,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:06-cr-00005-MSD-FBS-3; 4:11-cv-00140-MSD)
Submitted: October 22, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Courtney Omar Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Courtney Omar Boyd 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. The court construed the Rule 60(b) motion
as a successive § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and
conclude that Boyd’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 motion). Boyd is therefore not required to
obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district
court’s order. See McRae, 793 F.3d at 400. As noted by the
district court, in the absence of prefiling authorization from
this court, it lacked jurisdiction to hear Boyd’s successive §
2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Additionally, we construe Boyd’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
either:
2
(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Boyd’s claims do not satisfy either of
these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion. 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
3