UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7587
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY SINCLAIR WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O'Grady, District
Judge. (1:92-cr-00083-AVB-1; 1:08-cv-00722-CMH)
Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Sinclair Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph
Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Sinclair Williams 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 and denying his motions for a reduction of
his sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2012), and for correction of
clerical error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
The court construed the Rule 60(b) motion as a successive
§ 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and conclude that
Williams’ 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). Williams 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 Williams’ successive
§ 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Additionally, we construe Williams’ 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
2
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
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). Williams’ claims do not satisfy either of
these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion and affirm.
Our review of the district court’s denial of Williams’
§ 3582 motion and Rule 36 relief reveals no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court’s
order. United States v. Williams, Nos. 1:92-cr-00083-AVB-1;
1:08-cv-00722-CMH (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2015). 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