United States v. Mouzon , 354 F. App'x 739 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7300
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JEREMY MOUZON, a/k/a Ferris Earl Scott Green,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (2:03-cr-00896-PMD-1; 2:07-cv-70041-PMD)
    Submitted:    November 19, 2009             Decided:   December 3, 2009
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jeremy Mouzon, Appellant Pro Se.  Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jeremy    Mouzon       seeks   to    appeal    the      district    court’s
    orders      denying    (1)     his    Fed.    R.    Civ.    P.       60(b)    motion     for
    reconsideration of the district court’s prior denial of relief
    on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2009) motion and (2) his
    motion to alter or amend.               The orders are not appealable unless
    a     circuit    justice        or      judge      issues        a     certificate          of
    appealability.         
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone,
    
    369 F.3d 363
    ,     369     (4th     Cir.     2004).            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)
    (2006).       A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
    that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
    constitutional        claims    by    the    district      court      is     debatable      or
    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
    court is likewise debatable.                 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000);
    Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Mouzon has not made the requisite showing.                              The district
    court lacked jurisdiction to deny Mouzon’s Rule 60(b) motion on
    the merits because the claim he raises challenges the validity
    of    his   sentence     and    thus     should     have    been       construed       as    a
    successive § 2255 motion.             See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 
    545 U.S. 524
    ,
    2
    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 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).
    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   the   court    and     argument   would   not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7300

Citation Numbers: 354 F. App'x 739

Judges: Motz, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/3/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024