United States v. Stacy Johnson , 677 F. App'x 142 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7777
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STACY DEMORIS JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00332-WO-5; 1:16-cv-01199-
WO-LPA)
Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 22, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacy Demoris Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Childs,
Sandra Jane Hairston, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett
Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stacy Demoris Johnson appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, construing
Johnson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of
the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion as a successive § 2255 motion, and
dismissing it on that basis. We have reviewed the record and
conclude that the district court correctly determined that
Johnson’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)” motion, but in
substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United States v.
McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-400 (4th Cir. 2015); see also
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005) (explaining how
to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized
successive habeas corpus motion). Therefore, we conclude that
Johnson is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability
to appeal the district court’s order. See Mcrae, 793 F.3d at
400. The district court also correctly concluded that in the
absence of prefiling authorization, it lacked jurisdiction to
hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)
(2012).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3