United States v. Tiron Wheeler

UNPUBLISHED
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 court’s order dismissing
his 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. The court construed the Rule 60(b) motion as a
successive § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and
conclude that Wheeler’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, 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
court’s 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 Wheeler’s successive
§ 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Additionally, we construe Wheeler’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:
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). Wheeler’s claims do not satisfy either of
these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order. 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