UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6719
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DESHAWN R. RIVERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:12-cr-00148-PMD-1; 2:15-cv-02511-PMD)
Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deshawn R. Rivers, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deshawn R. Rivers appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion to reconsider the court’s earlier
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Rivers has
failed to show reversible error on appeal or establish grounds
for a certificate of appealability. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller–El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003). When the district court
denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must
demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484–85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Rivers has not made the requisite showing. The district court
lacked jurisdiction to deny Rivers’ motion to reconsider under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because the claims he raised challenged
2
the validity of his convictions, and thus the motion should have
been construed as a successive § 2255 motion. See Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531–32 (2005) (explaining how to
differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized
second or successive habeas corpus petition); United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003) (same). In the
absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the district
court lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
3