NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 3, 2018
Decided May 17, 2018
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
No. 17‐3392
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellee, Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
v.
No. 4:00‐CR‐40065‐JPG‐1
COREY A. WILLIAMS,
Defendant‐Appellant. J. Phil Gilbert,
Judge.
O R D E R
In 2001, Corey Williams was found guilty of conspiring to distribute crack,
possessing with intent to distribute crack, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
He received a sentence of life imprisonment. In 2003, he filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied it, and we denied
Williams’s request for a certificate of appealability. He then asked this court for
permission to file a successive § 2255 motion, which we denied in 2005.
Since then, Williams has repeatedly attempted to file unauthorized successive
§ 2255 petitions with the district court, disguising them as motions for relief from
No. 17‐3392 Page 2
judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). One of those motions, filed in 2017 in his original
criminal case, is before us now.
The district court cautioned Williams that if he did not withdraw the Rule 60(b)
motion at issue here, it would construe it as a successive petition. He did not do so, and
the district court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Because the district court
dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, Williams needed to obtain a certificate of
appealability in order to appeal the dismissal. United States v. Carraway, 478 F.3d 845,
849 (7th Cir. 2007). He does not expressly seek one here, but in the absence of an express
request, his notice of appeal constitutes a request. West v. Schneiter, 485 F.3d 393, 394–95
(7th Cir. 2007). Nonetheless, the district court correctly interpreted the Rule 60(b)
motion as an unauthorized successive collateral attack, so we DENY a certificate of
appealability, see Sveum v. Smith, 403 F.3d 447, 448 (7th Cir. 2005), and DISMISS this
appeal.