UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6771
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN TAYLOR TYER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00238-F-3; 5:13-cv-00449-F)
Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Taylor Tyer, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Taylor Tyer seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion to reconsider, under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b), the court’s earlier order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. §
2255 (2012) motion. 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
Tyer has not made the requisite showing. The district court
lacked jurisdiction to deny Tyer’s Rule 60(b) motion on the
merits because the claims he raised challenged the validity of
his convictions, and thus the motion should have been construed
2
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