United States v. Joseph Monroe ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6425
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH EDWARDS MONROE, a/k/a Slim,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00041-NKM-4; 3:13-cv-80801-NKM-
RSB)
Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Edwards Monroe, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Spodick Healey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Edwards Monroe appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) motion. The district
court properly characterized this motion as an unauthorized
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissed it for
lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400
(4th Cir. 2015) (holding that a certificate of appealability is
unnecessary where a district court dismisses a Rule 60(b) motion
as an unauthorized successive habeas motion).
Additionally, we construe Monroe’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003). 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). Monroe’s claims do not satisfy either of
these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion.
2
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
3