United States v. Tiron Wheeler, 4th Cir. (2016)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Tiron Wheeler, 4th Cir. (2016)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7490
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIRON WHEELER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:01-cr-00422-WMN-1)
Submitted:
January 14, 2016
Decided:
January 20, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tiron Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se.
Martin Joseph Clarke,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jacabed Rodriguez Coss, Andrew
George Warrnes Norman, Stephen Schenning, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tiron Wheeler appeals the district courts order dismissing
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the
district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255
(2012) motion.
successive
The court construed the Rule 60(b) motion as a
2255
motion.
We
have
reviewed
the
record
and
conclude that Wheelers motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion,
but
in
substance
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, 531-33 (2005) (explaining how
to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized
successive habeas motion).
Wheeler is therefore not required to
obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district
courts 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 Wheelers successive
2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Additionally, we construe Wheelers notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
2255 motion.
(4th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
In order to obtain authorization to file a
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).
these
criteria.
Wheelers claims do not satisfy either of
Therefore,
successive 2255 motion.
courts order.
we
deny
authorization
to
file
Accordingly, we affirm the district
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
