United States v. Shannon Williams ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHANNON DERRELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Doe,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00085-JRS-1; 3:05-cv-00100-JRS)
Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shannon Derrell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas
Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
George Alfred Townsend, GEORGE A. TOWNSEND, IV, PLLC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shannon Derrell Williams appeals the district court’s order
construing his self-styled “motion for declaratory judgment
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201” and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions and
dismissing them as unauthorized. We have reviewed the record
and conclude that Williams’ motions were, in substance,
successive § 2255 motions. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d
392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545
U.S. 524, 532 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true
Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized successive habeas corpus
motion). We thus conclude that Williams is not required to
obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district
court’s order. See McRae, 793 F.3d at 400. However, in the
absence of prefiling authorization, the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider Williams’ successive motions. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2012). Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order.
Additionally, we construe Williams’ 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:
2
(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). Williams’ claims do not satisfy either of
these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion.
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