UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7786
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL LAWRENCE BRANCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:05-cr-00016-CCB-1; 1:10-cv-00079-CCB)
Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Lawrence Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks,
Assistant United States Attorney, Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Lawrence Branch appeals the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from
judgment with respect to the denial of his previously filed 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and
conclude that Branch’s motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion,
but was, in substance, a successive § 2255 motion. See United
States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2005); 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). Branch therefore is not required to
obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district
court’s order. McRae, 793 F.3d at 400. In the absence of
prefiling authorization from this court, the district court
lacked jurisdiction to hear Branch’s successive § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Additionally, we construe Branch’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:
(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
2
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). Branch’s claims do not satisfy either of
these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion and 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