UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6813
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSAND FARMER, a/k/a Johan Farmer,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00271-FL-3)
Submitted: October 7, 2016 Decided: October 19, 2016
Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Josand Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Josand Farmer seeks to appeal from the district court’s
order denying his motion to correct error in the presentence
report and judgment. We conclude that Farmer’s motion was in
substance a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The district court’s 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
Farmer has not made the requisite showing. The district court
lacked jurisdiction to deny § 2255 relief on the merits because
Farmer’s motion to correct challenged the validity of his
2
sentence and should have been construed as a successive § 2255
motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531–32 (2005);
United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003).
In the absence of pre-filing 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, deny
Farmer’s motion to compel, 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