US v. Madison McRae

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:04-cr-00223-RJC-DCK-2,3:08-cv-00219-RJC. [999619169]. [13-6878]

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 1 of 28

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6878

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MADISON DUANE MCRAE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00223-RJC-DCK-2; 3:08-cv-00219-RJC)
Argued:

January 28, 2015

Decided:

July 13, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote
the majority opinion, in which Judge Wynn joined.
Judge Wynn
wrote a separate concurring opinion.
Judge Motz wrote a
dissenting opinion.
ARGUED: Robert Leonard Littlehale, III, PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
William Michael Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlotte,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.
ON
BRIEF:
William Blaise Warren, Molissa H. Farber, Diana V. Valdivia,
Nathaniel D. Cullerton, Washington, D.C., Alexandra R. Clark,
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, New York, New
York, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 2 of 28

GREGORY, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Madison Duane McRae was convicted of four drugrelated charges on September 14, 2005.
appeal

and

a

pro

se

attempt

to

have

After an unsuccessful
his

sentence

vacated,

corrected, or set aside under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, McRae filed a
pro

se

Relief

motion
from

with

the

Judgment

district

court

60(b)(1)(3)(6).”

entitled
The

“Motion

district

for

court

dismissed the motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
finding that it constituted an impermissible successive habeas
petition rather than a proper Rule 60(b) motion.

McRae appeals

this judgment.
The threshold issue before us is whether we can review the
district court’s categorization of McRae’s motion without first
issuing a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) pursuant to 28
U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B).

We

hold

that

recent

Supreme

Court

jurisprudence has made clear that § 2253(c) does not apply in
this particular situation.

Because we find that McRae’s motion

constitutes a mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2255 motion, we remand to the
district court to afford McRae the opportunity to decide whether
to abandon his improper claim or to proceed with a successive
habeas petition.

2

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 3 of 28

I.
A.
In 2004, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Agent
Blaine

Crum

Rodney Green,
activity.
McRae

had

began
after

investigating

he

became

McRae’s

suspicious

of

co-defendant,

drug

trafficking

On August 21, 2004, Agent Crum learned that Green and
traveled

Andrea Spears.

to

Jamaica,

as

had

Green’s

connection

Two other women, Atonia Bailey and Latia Harris,

had flown to Jamaica as well.

Although the travelers flew out

of two different airports (Green and McRae from one and Spears,
Harris, and Bailey from the other), all of their tickets had
been purchased using cash at the Columbus, Ohio airport.
When Spears, Harris, and Bailey returned from Jamaica they
were questioned at the Charlotte Douglas International Airport
by customs agents, who seized cocaine and marijuana from Harris
and Bailey.

McRae and Green were pulled aside by customs agents

at the Memphis International Airport for secondary examinations;
Agent Crum sat in on their interviews.
After

the

interviews,

Agent

Crum

called

the

Charlotte

airport and learned that Bailey and Harris had been transporting
controlled substances.
photograph.

Based

McRae and Green.

on

Bailey had also identified McRae using a
this

information,

Agent

Crum

arrested

He obtained a search warrant for, among other

things, the information in McRae’s cell phone, and retrieved
3

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 4 of 28

McRae’s text messages, list of contacts, and record of recent
calls.

Agent Crum learned that the number labeled “Tnia” was

Bailey’s, and that McRae and Green had contacted each other just
before leaving for Jamaica.
In February 2005, McRae was charged with four drug-related
offenses.

At

the

ensuing

trial,

Spears testified against McRae.

Green,

Bailey,

Harris,

and

According to Green, he began

distributing cocaine to McRae in 2004 and later agreed to help
McRae import cocaine from Jamaica.
he

and

McRae

successfully

Green testified that, after

imported

a

kilogram

of

cocaine

in

August 2004, Green and McRae arranged for Spears, Harris, and
Bailey

to

tickets,
Jamaica.

travel

and

Green

to

Jamaica.

bought

1.5

McRae
kilograms

purchased
of

cocaine

everyone’s
while

in

Green also gave McRae Ace bandages and duct tape for

strapping the cocaine onto Bailey and two smaller packages for
Harris and Spears to insert into their vaginas.
According to Bailey, in mid-August 2004 McRae offered her
$500 to go to Jamaica and “bring something back.”

J.A. 182.

After initially agreeing Bailey changed her mind, but McRae said
since

they

already

had

Jamaica and “kick it.”

the

tickets

J.A. 183-84.

they

could

still

go

to

Bailey testified that when

she got out of the shower on their last morning in Jamaica her
ticket and birth certificate were missing.

4

McRae told her that

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 5 of 28

if she wanted to get home she would have to transport packages
of cocaine, which she did.
Spears testified that she traveled to Jamaica with Green
and a woman named Cheryl Turner in January 2004 and transported
500 Ecstasy pills to the United States.

In the summer of 2004

Harris asked Spears to go back to Jamaica with Harris and Green.
Spears initially declined, but agreed when Green told her this
trip would not be like the first.

According to Spears, on their

last morning in Jamaica she got out of the shower and found a
package of drugs lying on her clothes.

After arguing with Green

she inserted the package into her vagina, but she removed it
before leaving.
According to Harris, she traveled to Jamaica at Green’s
invitation, and when she got out of the shower on their last
morning there, a package of drugs was lying next to her clothes.
Following Green’s instructions, she inserted the package into
her vagina.
Several law enforcement officers also testified at McRae’s
trial.

Agent Crum testified that during McRae’s interview at

the airport, McRae said that he worked in real estate and that
Green had paid for his trip to Jamaica.

Agent Crum asked McRae

if he could look through his cell phone.

He found a contact

labeled

contact

“Tnia,”

and

asked

McRae

Bailey; McRae denied that it was.
5

if

that

was

Atonia

At some point McRae withdrew

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 6 of 28

his consent for Agent Crum to search the phone, and Agent Crum
did not go through the phone again until he obtained a warrant.
ICE Agent Robert Mensinger, who assisted Agent Crum with
his investigation, testified about a conversation he had with
McRae at the airport.
whether

he

could

According to Agent Mensinger, McRae asked

do

anything

to

help

his

situation.

Agent

Mensinger asked McRae if he had been advised of his rights, to
which McRae responded, “Yeah, I know my rights.”

J.A. 572.

Agent Mensinger did not provide McRae with an official Miranda
form, but he did advise McRae of his right to remain silent and
his right to an attorney.
the

room,

McRae

began

As Agent Mensinger started to leave

talking

about

the

trip

to

Jamaica.

According to Mensinger, McRae initially said that he had not
seen Bailey for several weeks, but later changed his story and
admitted to being with her as well as Spears, Harris, and Green
in Jamaica.

He stated that he had seen two kilograms of cocaine

in the bungalow in Jamaica, and told Agent Mensinger about how
Green had strapped the cocaine onto “the girls.”

J.A. 574-75.

McRae’s counsel objected to both Agent Crum’s and Agent
Mensinger’s testimony.

As Agent Crum began testifying about his

interview with Green and McRae at the airport, counsel asserted
that

there

was

no

corroborative

evidence

of

the

statements

allegedly made by McRae and no waiver-of-rights form, and moved
for voir dire.

The district court denied the motion, stating
6

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 7 of 28

that counsel could accomplish his goals on cross-examination.
Similarly, counsel requested the opportunity to voir dire Agent
Mensinger.

The

court

denied

the

motion,

but

directed

the

government to lay a foundation to allow the court to determine
whether there had been a violation of rights.

Counsel had not

moved to suppress testimony from either agent.

Prior to jury

deliberations, the court explained its denial of counsel’s voir
dire motions in greater detail.

It noted that McRae’s counsel

had waived the right to a suppression hearing by failing to file
a pre-trial motion to suppress, but found in the alternative
that the testimony in question “was credible, the appropriate
warnings

were

given,

and . . . any

defendant were knowing and voluntary.”

statements

made

by

the

J.A. 655-56.

B.
After

a

three-day

trial,

on

September

convicted McRae of four drug-related charges.

14,

2005,

a

jury

On May 25, 2006,

the district court sentenced McRae to 210 months of imprisonment
for

each

of

the

four

charges,

to

run

concurrently.

McRae

appealed, but this Court affirmed his conviction and sentence.
United States v. McRae, 235 F. App’x 968 (4th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam) (unpublished).

On May 12, 2008, McRae filed a petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his
sentence.
assistance

Among
of

trial

other
and

things,
appellate
7

McRae

claimed

counsel

and

ineffective
prosecutorial

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

misconduct.

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 8 of 28

On July 19, 2010, without holding an evidentiary

hearing, the district court granted the government’s motion for
summary judgment.

This Court subsequently held that McRae could

not appeal absent a COA, which the Court declined to issue.
United States v. McRae, 450 F. App’x 284 (4th Cir. 2011) (per
curiam) (unpublished).
After

filing

unsuccessful

petitions

for

rehearing

and

rehearing en banc, and a writ for certiorari, McRae filed a pro
se

motion

entitled

60(b)(1)(3)(6).”

“Motion

for

Relief

from

Judgment

His motion highlighted five alleged errors in

the district court’s § 2255 proceedings:

1) the district court,

relying on the government’s memorandum, falsely stated that the
court had not mentioned counsel’s failure to move to suppress
when denying counsel’s motions for voir dire; 2) the district
court mistakenly stated that McRae admitted to knowing Bailey;
3) the district court did not consider every statement made by
McRae in determining whether his counsel was ineffective for
failing to move to suppress; 4) the district court mistakenly
attributed

Agent

Mensinger’s

testimony

that

McRae

knew

his

rights to Agent Crum; and 5) the district court misquoted Agent
Mensinger as telling McRae an attorney would be appointed for
him if he could not afford one.
Rule

60(b)

motion

for

lack

of

The court dismissed McRae’s
subject-matter

jurisdiction,

holding that the motion was a successive § 2255 motion for which
8

Appeal: 13-6878

he

Doc: 72

had

Filed: 07/13/2015

failed

§ 2244(b)(3),
appealed,

to

and

and

obtain
declining

this

Court

Pg: 9 of 28

preauthorization
to

issue

appointed

a

under

counsel

to

U.S.C.

McRae

COA.

28

timely

address

the

question “whether, in light of Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363
(4th Cir. 2004), and Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005),
McRae’s appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his Rule
60(b)

motion

as

an

unauthorized

successive

§ 2255

motion

is

subject to the certificate of appealability requirement.”

II.
On appeal, McRae argues that the district court erred in
treating his motion as a successive habeas petition rather than
a

“mixed”

Rule

60(b)/§ 2255

motion,

and

that

this

Court

may

review the district court’s determination without first issuing
a

COA.

“[O]ur

review

is

de

novo

where

a

district

court

construes a motion as a successive § 2255 motion and dismisses
it for failure to obtain prefiling authorization from a court of
appeals.”

United States v. MacDonald, 641 F.3d 596, 609 (4th

Cir. 2011).
Rule 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a final
judgment for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered
in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
9

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 10 of 28

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct by
an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the
judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been
reversed
or
otherwise
vacated;
or
applying
it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other
reason that justifies relief.
Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

proceedings,

but

inconsistent

with”

60(b).
only

Rule

“to

the

applicable

60(b)
extent

statutory

applies
that

to

[it

provisions

§ 2255

is]

and

not

rules.

Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, Rule 12, 28 U.S.C. foll.
§ 2255.

Therefore, a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas proceeding

that attacks “the substance of the federal court’s resolution of
a claim on the merits” is not a true Rule 60(b) motion, but
rather a successive habeas petition.
32.

Gonzales, 545 U.S. at 531-

A successive habeas petition may not be filed in district

court without preauthorization from a court of appeals under
§ 2244(b)(3)(A).
defect

in

the

A

Rule

integrity

60(b)
of

motion

the

that

federal

challenges

habeas

“some

proceedings,”

however, is a true Rule 60(b) motion, and is not subject to the
preauthorization requirement.

Id.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, a court of appeals may not
review

“the

final

order

in

a

proceeding

under

section

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a COA.

10

2255”

28 U.S.C.

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

§ 2253(c)(1)(B). 1

Pg: 11 of 28

A judge may issue a COA “only if the applicant

has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.”

Id.

This standard varies slightly depending on whether

the district court denied the applicant’s habeas petition on the
merits or on procedural grounds.
merits,

“[t]he

jurists

would

petitioner
find

the

must

If the denial was on the
demonstrate

district

court’s

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

that

reasonable

assessment

of

the

Slack v. McDaniel,

If, on the other hand, the denial was

procedural, the petitioner must show “that jurists of reason
would

find

it

debatable

whether

the

petition

states

a

valid

claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists
of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.”

Id. (emphasis added).

In Reid v. Angelone, this Court held that the § 2253(c) COA
requirement applies to an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a
habeas action. 2
reached

this

§ 2253(c).

369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).

conclusion
Id.

at

367.

by

examining
First,

the

the

plain

Court

The Court

language

determined

of

that

1

An identical requirement applies to “the final order in a
habeas corpus proceeding [under § 2254] in which the detention
complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).
2

Reid dealt with a § 2254 proceeding, but the analysis is
applicable to § 2255 proceedings as well.

11

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 12 of 28

although § 2253(c) applies only to one order in any given habeas
proceeding

(“the

final

order”),

“a

single

habeas

embrace multiple habeas ‘proceedings’ . . . .”

action

may

Id. at 367-68.

Second, the Court found that a proceeding involving a Rule 60(b)
motion is necessarily a proceeding distinct from the one giving
rise to the underlying challenged judgment.

Id. at 368.

finally,

60(b)

the

challenging

Court

the

reasoned

judgment

in

that
a

a

habeas

Rule

proceeding

And

proceeding

is

itself

“habeas corpus proceeding” for the purposes of § 2253(c).
at 369.
also

a

Id.

After analyzing the text of the statute, the Reid Court

found

that

subjecting

Rule

60(b)

motions

to

the

COA

requirement is consistent with the policy concerns underlying
the requirement.
The

Reid

Id. at 369-70.
Court

issued

a

COA,

but

then

dismissed

the

petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion as an improper successive habeas
petition.

Id. at 374-75.

In doing so, the Court acknowledged

the apparent incongruity of granting a COA only to hold that the
district court lacked jurisdiction.

Id. at 374 n.7.

However,

the panel found itself to be constrained by the statutory text
of

the

COA

requirement,

which

does

not

include

an

explicit

exception for “questions of subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Id.,

see also Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688-89 (4th Cir. 2004)
(holding

that

an

order

dismissing

12

a

habeas

petition

as

an

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

unauthorized

Filed: 07/13/2015

successive

Pg: 13 of 28

petition

is

subject

to

the

COA

requirement).
Subsequent Supreme Court cases have made clear that we need
not accept this incongruity in every situation.

Based on the

Court’s reasoning in Gonzales, 545 U.S. 524, and Harbison v.
Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009), we hold that the COA requirement in
§ 2253(c) allows us to review, without first issuing a COA, an
order dismissing a Rule 60(b) motion as an improper successive
habeas petition.
In

Gonzales,

the

Supreme

Court

considered

whether

Rule

60(b) motions in habeas cases “are subject to the additional
restrictions that apply to ‘second or successive’ habeas corpus
petitions” under AEDPA.
§ 2244(b).
that

545 U.S. at 526; see also 28 U.S.C.

It concluded that “true” Rule 60(b) motions, motions

challenge

“not

the

substance

of

the

federal

court’s

resolution of a claim on the merits, but some defect in the
integrity

of

the

federal

habeas

proceedings,”

treated as successive habeas petitions.

should

Id. at 531-33.

not

be

Central

to this holding is the principle that, in order to preserve the
“unquestionably valid role” Rule 60(b) motions play in habeas
cases, we must distinguish between true Rule 60(b) motions and
successive habeas applications.

See id. at 533-34.

Four years later, the Supreme Court held in Harbison that a
habeas petitioner appealing the denial of a motion to enlarge
13

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 14 of 28

the authority of appointed counsel need not obtain a COA.
U.S.

at

183.

In

so

holding,

the

Court

noted

556
that

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) 3 “governs final orders that dispose of the merits
of a habeas corpus proceeding -- a proceeding challenging the
lawfulness

of

the

petitioner’s

detention.”

Id.

Because

an

order denying a motion to enlarge authority of counsel “is not
such an order,” the Court reasoned that the COA requirement did
not apply.

Id.

In the wake of Harbison, other circuits have questioned the
continued validity of requiring a habeas petitioner to obtain a
COA before appealing a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.

In Wilson

v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, the Third
Circuit noted that its precedent in Morris v. Horn, 187 F.3d 333
(3d Cir. 1999), applied the COA requirement to an appeal of a
denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, but recognized that “the vitality
of that decision is undermined somewhat by the Supreme Court’s
decision in Harbison v. Bell.”
2015).

782 F.3d 110, 115 (3d Cir.

And in Jones v. Ryan, the Ninth Circuit cited Harbison

for the proposition that “[w]ere [the petitioner] appealing the

3

Like the Fifth Circuit, “[w]e find no reason why the
Harbison Court’s reasoning would not be equally applicable to
§ 2253(c)(1)(B).”
United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 686
(5th Cir. 2015).

14

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 15 of 28

denial or dismissal of a valid Rule 60(b) motion, he may have
had no need for a COA.”
The

Gonzales

733 F.3d 825, 832 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013). 4

Court

explicitly

left

open

the

question

whether orders denying Rule 60(b) motions in habeas cases are
exempt from § 2253(c)’s COA requirement. 5

545 U.S. at 535 & n.7.

And Harbison certainly bears on that question, recognizing a
link between the need for a COA and an order’s effect on the
merits of a habeas proceeding.

For our purposes today, however,

we need not determine whether the COA requirement applies to all
orders

denying

narrower:

Rule

whether

jurisdictional

60(b)
we

motions.

may

categorization

Our

address
of

a

inquiry

the

district

Rule

60(b)

is

much

court’s

motion

as

a

successive habeas petition without first issuing a COA.

4

At least one circuit excluded orders denying Rule 60(b)
motions from the COA requirement prior to Harbison. See Dunn v.
Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491, 492 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2002).
5

It was this Court’s decision to issue a COA following a
denial on the merits that the Supreme Court indicated might have
been appropriate in Gonzalez.
Specifically, the Supreme Court
stated that “[m]any Courts of Appeals have construed 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253 to impose an additional limitation on appellate review by
requiring a habeas petitioner to obtain a COA as a prerequisite
to appealing the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.” 545 U.S. 524,
535 (emphasis added).
Furthermore, the Gonzales Court did not
endorse Reid’s holding, but merely compared it favorably to the
“near-absolute bar” imposed by the Eleventh Circuit. See id. at
535 n.7 (noting that Reid’s application of the COA requirement
to Rule 60(b) motions is “a more plausible and effective
screening requirement” (emphasis added)).

15

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 16 of 28

Gonzales mandates that we treat true Rule 60(b) motions
differently from successive habeas petitions, and Harbison holds
that only final orders with a sufficient nexus to the merits of
a habeas petition trigger the COA requirement.

In other words,

Gonzales reveals the importance of distinguishing between Rule
60(b) motions and successive petitions, and Harbison opens the
door for us to ensure that the district court does so properly.
While

a

denial

of

a

Rule

60(b)

motion

may

be

sufficiently

connected to the merits of the underlying habeas proceeding, a
dismissal is not.

When a district court denies a Rule 60(b)

motion on the merits, it necessarily considers the merits of the
underlying habeas petition.
illegality

in

the

conduct

Since a Rule 60(b) motion alleges
of

a

proceeding,

considering

the

merits of such a motion is, in and of itself, developing a nexus
to the actual habeas proceeding itself, and thus to the merits
of that proceeding. 6

The same cannot be said about a dismissal

of a Rule 60(b) motion on jurisdictional grounds.

No one can

say right now whether McRae’s habeas proceeding was with merit
or without based on the district court’s dismissal.

6

For example, in a Rule 60(b) motion addressing the merits,
if a petitioner alleged that his conviction was based on perjury
committed by a testifying witness, that would call into question
the validity of his initial sentencing.
Therefore, if a
district court denied that motion, it would have weighed the
merits of the motion, found they were lacking, and therefore
that the original habeas proceeding itself was valid.

16

Appeal: 13-6878

A
habeas

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

jurisdictional

dismissal

proceeding

so

Pg: 17 of 28

is

far

of

a

removed

collateral
from

the

attack

merits

on

of

a

the

underlying habeas petition that it cannot be said to be a “final
order[] . . .

dispos[ing]

of

the

merits

of

a

habeas

corpus

proceeding . . . challenging the lawfulness of the petitioner’s
detention.”

See Harbison, 556 U.S. at 183.

We therefore hold

that we need not issue a COA before determining whether the
district court erred in dismissing McRae’s purported Rule 60(b)
motion as an unauthorized successive habeas petition. 7

III.
The

parties

agree

that

the

district

court

erred

in

dismissing McRae’s motion as an impermissible successive § 2255
petition.

See Appellee’s Br. 48-50; Appellant’s Reply Br. 1.

McRae argues, and the government agrees, that his first, second,

7

The facts of the case before us do not require us to
reexamine Reid in its entirety under Harbison and Gonzales.
Rather, we recognize today an abrogation of only a small part of
Reid’s reasoning.
In that case, the lower court denied the
purported Rule 60(b) motion on the merits, and this Court raised
the jurisdictional issue sua sponte after granting a COA.
See
369 F.3d at 373-75.
The petitioner’s appeal challenged a type
of order different from the one at issue here:
an order
addressing the merits of a Rule 60(b) motion, as opposed to an
order dismissing a Rule 60(b) motion as a successive habeas
application.
Unless and until this Court concludes that
Harbison makes the COA requirement inapplicable to denials of
Rule 60(b) motions generally, Reid’s reasoning remains almost
entirely intact.

17

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 18 of 28

fourth, and fifth claims are properly categorized as Rule 60(b)
claims challenging the collateral review process, whereas his
third claim is a successive attack on his conviction over which
the district court did not have jurisdiction.

This Court has

made clear that “[w]hen [a] motion presents claims subject to
the requirements for successive applications as well as claims
cognizable under Rule 60(b), the district court should afford
the

applicant

improper

an

claims

opportunity
or

having

successive application.”
200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003).

to

the

elect
entire

between
motion

deleting
treated

the

as

a

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
McRae was not given that opportunity

here.
The government contends, however, that we should affirm the
district court on other grounds.

Specifically, it argues that

1) McRae’s Rule 60(b) claims were untimely, and 2) he failed to
make the requisite showing of extraordinary circumstances. 8
Under Rule 60(c)(1), a Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3) motion
must

be

made

“no

more

than

a

year

after

the

judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.”
P. 60(c)(1).

entry

of

the

Fed. R. Civ.

All four of McRae’s 60(b) claims fall into these

categories, but he filed his motion nearly 18 months after the
8

This showing is required only for Rule 60(b)(6) claims.
See Gonzales, 545 U.S. at 535; Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496,
500 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc).

18

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

district

Filed: 07/13/2015

court

denied

his

Pg: 19 of 28

§ 2255

motion.

Therefore,

government argues that McRae’s motion is time-barred.

the
McRae

correctly asserts, however, that this issue should be resolved
by the district court in the first instance.

In United States

v. Blackstock, this Court declined to affirm the dismissal of a
§ 2255 petition on the alternate ground that the petition was
time-barred.
noting

that

513 F.3d 128, 133 (4th Cir. 2008).
“AEDPA’s

limitations

period

is

The panel,

an

affirmative

defense,” held that “it would be improper . . . to affirm the
dismissal . . . on timeliness grounds” where the petitioner “has
had

no

opportunity

justify

the

to

come

application

of

forward

with

equitable

evidence

tolling

or

establish that his claims are not time-barred.”

Id.

the

an

Rule

defense.

60(b)

one-year

filing

deadline

is

that

might

otherwise
Similarly,
affirmative

See Willis v. Jones, 329 F. App’x 7, 14 (6th Cir.

2009) (unpublished) (holding that “this Rule 60(b) time limit is
an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar”). 9

Because the

issue of timeliness was not raised below, McRae has not had an
opportunity to make a case for timely filing.

Therefore, the

proper course of action is to remand.

9

The court reasoned:
“The Federal Rules, in and of
themselves, do not alter the jurisdiction of the district court.
And the Supreme Court has held that similar ‘claim-processing
rules’ are not jurisdictional.”
Willis, 329 F. App’x at 14.
(internal citations omitted).

19

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 20 of 28

Similarly, the merits of McRae’s claims are best addressed
by the district court in the first instance.

Although appellate

courts do sometimes proceed to the merits of miscategorized Rule
60(b)

motions,

see,

e.g.,

Gonzales,

545

U.S.

Winestock rule counsels in favor of remand.
see

also

position

Reid,
on

relief”).

369

F.3d

at

375

whether

Reid

is

in

536,

the

340 F.3d at 208-09;

(remanding
fact

at

and

entitled

“tak[ing]
to

Rule

no

60(b)

At least one other Court of Appeals has taken this

approach as well.

See Cox v. Horn, 757 F.3d 113, 124 (3d Cir.

2014) (“The grant or denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion is an
equitable matter left, in the first instance, to the discretion
of

a

district

deferential

court.”).

standard

of

And

review

as

McRae

regarding

points

Rule

out,

60(b)

our

motions

recognizes the district court’s superior position for evaluating
the merits.
Constr.

See Consol. Masonry & Fireproofing, Inc. v. Wagman

Corp.,

383

F.2d

249,

251

(4th

Cir.

1967)

(“The

disposition of motions made under Rule[] . . . 60(b) is a matter
which lies largely within the discretion of the trial judge and
his

action

is

not

lightly

to

be

disturbed

by

an

appellate

court.”); see also Std. Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429
U.S. 17, 19 (1976) (noting that “the trial court is in a much
better position to pass upon the issues presented in a motion
pursuant

to

Rule

60(b)”

(internal

20

quotation

marks

omitted)).

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 21 of 28

For these reasons, the merits of McRae’s 60(b) claims are best
left to the district court on remand.

IV.
We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and
remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED

21

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 22 of 28

WYNN, Circuit Judge, concurring:
Not wholly unlike the issue we confronted in Blakely v.
Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 617 (2013) (en banc), where the “nub of the
majority’s and dissent’s disagreement [was] the term dismiss,”
today, we disagree about whether dismissals and denials can be
conflated
Fittingly

for
to

purposes
this

case,

of
in

Certificates
Blakely

our

of

Appealability.

dissenting

colleague

viewed the word dismiss as having a very narrow and distinct
definition “learned in the first year of law school.”
626 (Motz, J., dissenting).
overcome

neither

by

Id. at

That narrow definition could be

“imprecise

overbroad dictionary definition.”

common
Id.

usage”

nor

by

“an

Applying that sentiment

here, there must be a distinction between “actual dismissals”
and denials.

Id.

Otherwise, we run the risk of “improperly

restrict[ing] access to the courts.”

Id. at 624.

With great

respect to the dissenting view, I must therefore agree with the
majority opinion.

22

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 23 of 28

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
The majority holds that a habeas petitioner need not obtain
a certificate of appealability (COA) before appealing a district
court’s “order denying [his] Rule 60(b) motion as an improper
successive

habeas

petition.”

Because

this

conclusion

runs

counter to binding circuit precedent, I respectfully dissent.
We
“final

only
order

circuit

have
in

2004),

a

justice

§ 2253(c)(1).
we

jurisdiction
proceeding

or

judge”

to

consider

under”

issues

28
a

an

appeal

U.S.C.

COA.

§ 2255

See

28

from

a

if

“a

U.S.C.

In Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.

held

that

a

district

court’s

denial

of

a

habeas

petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion constitutes such an order, and
thus we lack appellate jurisdiction to review it absent a COA.
In this case, after dismissing McRae’s Rule 60(b) motion as a
successive § 2255 petition, the district court declined to issue
a COA.

And no member of this court has issued a COA. 1

Under

Reid, we therefore lack jurisdiction to hear McRae’s appeal and
so should dismiss it.
The

majority

our precedent.

eschews

this

straightforward

application

of

My colleagues contend that two recent Supreme

1

There is good reason for this.
McRae plainly fails to
qualify for a COA for he cannot make a “substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

23

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 24 of 28

Court cases combine to abrogate -- at least in part -- our
holding in Reid.

I cannot agree.

First, the majority relies on Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S.
524

(2005),

Supreme

which

Court

did

not

considered

even
the

involve

interplay

a

COA.

There,

between

Rule

the

60(b)

motions and the 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) requirement that habeas
petitioners obtain authorization from a court of appeals before
filing a successive habeas petition.

See id. at 530-36.

The

Gonzalez Court held that if a Rule 60(b) motion “attacks . . .
the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings,” rather than
the outcome of those proceedings, it is not “a habeas corpus
application” and does not require pre-filing authorization.
at 532-33.

Id.

Thus, Gonzalez simply empowers a petitioner to file

a challenge to the integrity of his habeas proceedings in a Rule
60(b) motion without obtaining pre-filing authorization from an
appellate

court.

Gonzalez

does

not

empower

a

petitioner

to

appeal the denial of such a challenge without obtaining a COA.
The majority elides the distinction between the two forms of
authorization,

notwithstanding

their

separate

statutory

and

analytical bases.
Whether a petitioner must first obtain a COA to appeal a
Rule 60(b) denial is, in fact, a question the Gonzalez Court
expressly declined to resolve.

Id. at 535 n.7.

But, citing our

decision in Reid, the Court acknowledged in dicta that “[m]any
24

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 25 of 28

Courts of Appeals” impose such a COA requirement.

Id. at 535.

And the Court even intimated that this approach was the correct
one.

See id. at 535 n.7 (noting COA requirement for 60(b)

appeals

is

“a

more

plausible

and

effective

screening

requirement, with sounder basis in the statute” than requiring
pre-filing
instance).

authorization

for

60(b)

motions

in

the

first

Far from undercutting Reid’s logic then, Gonzalez

actually all but endorses it.
Accordingly, the majority’s heavy reliance on Gonzalez is
misplaced.
“that

we

The majority correctly notes that Gonzalez requires
treat

true

Rule

60(b)

successive habeas petitions.”

motions

differently

Indeed we must.

court that fails to do so commits error.

from

And a district

But that conclusion

does not answer the question now before us, i.e., whether a
petitioner denied Rule 60(b) relief can, absent a COA, obtain
appellate

review.

Reid

held

that

we

lack

jurisdiction

to

entertain such an appeal and Gonzalez does not abrogate that
holding.
The other case on which the majority relies, Harbison v.
Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009), did consider the COA provision.

The

Harbison Court held a COA “not necessary” to appeal an order
denying a request for counsel, reasoning that the COA provision
applies only to “final orders that dispose of the merits of a
habeas corpus proceeding.”

Id. at 183.
25

The majority concludes

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 26 of 28

that “[a] jurisdictional dismissal” of a Rule 60(b) motion, like
the request for counsel in Harbison, “is so far removed from the
merits of the underlying habeas petition” that it, too, does not
“dispose of the merits.”
That conclusion is, in my view, simply wrong.

A final

order that does not “consider[] the merits” of a habeas petition
can certainly dispose of the merits.

A Rule 60(b) motion “to

reopen proceedings” seeks to put at issue claims that have been
resolved by final judgment.

United States v. MacDonald, 641

F.3d 596, 603 (4th Cir. 2011); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
An

order

foreclosing

such

relief

clearly

“disposes

merits” of claims the movant sought to relitigate.

of

the

An order

denying a request for counsel, like that at issue in Harbison,
by contrast, leaves the merits of the underlying claims entirely
unaffected.

The

majority

apparently

believes

that

only

by

“developing a nexus . . . to the merits” can an order dispose of
the merits.

Nothing in Harbison suggests that the Supreme Court

intended to alter the plain meaning of the word “dispose” in
this manner.
Nor does anything in Harbison indicate that the Court there
intended to exempt an order dismissing a Rule 60(b) motion from
the COA requirement.

After all, a mere four years earlier, the

Court had noted in Gonzalez that “[m]any Courts of Appeals . . .
requir[e] a habeas petitioner to obtain a COA as a prerequisite
26

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 27 of 28

to appealing the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.”
535.

545 U.S. at

The Harbison Court made no reference to Rule 60(b), let

alone suggested that it intended to partially abrogate what it
had

so

recently

recognized

effective” practice.

as

a

widespread,

“plausible

and

Id. at 535 n.7.

The majority’s assertion that it abrogates “only a small
part of Reid’s reasoning” gives me little comfort.

The majority

does limit its holding to an “order dismissing a Rule 60(b)
motion as a successive habeas application,” leaving for another
day whether an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion continues to
require a COA.

But we have never treated Rule 60(b) denials and

Rule 60(b) dismissals differently for COA purposes.

See Reid,

369 F.3d at 375 (requiring COA for all “appeals from Rule 60(b)
motions in habeas cases”).

This is, of course, because the COA

provision broadly covers “final order[s]” in habeas proceedings.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1).

A jurisdictional dismissal is no less a

“final order” than a denial on the merits.

Thus, the majority’s

purported preservation of a portion of Reid rests on decidedly
shaky ground.
Moreover, if the majority’s assertedly “small” holding did
remain good law, it would yield a very strange result.

Under

this regime, we would still require a COA to appeal the denial
of a Rule 60(b) motion on its merits, see Reid, 369 F.3d at 369,
and to appeal the dismissal of a § 2255 motion as successive,
27

Appeal: 13-6878

Doc: 72

Filed: 07/13/2015

Pg: 28 of 28

see Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004).

But

when a district court dismisses a Rule 60(b) motion as actually
a successive § 2255 motion in Rule 60(b) clothing, no COA would
be necessary.

This seems to me to make little sense.

Though I believe neither Gonzalez nor Harbison justifies
the result reached by the majority, I am not without sympathy
for McRae.

As the Government concedes, the district court erred

in not permitting him to separate his “true” Rule 60(b) claims
from those that were successive habeas claims.
Br. 49-50.

See Appellee’s

But the purpose of a COA is “to prevent frivolous

cases from clogging appellate dockets and to promote finality.”
United States v. Vargas, 393 F.3d 172, 174 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

To

that

of

end,

Congress

has

stripped

courts

of

appeals

jurisdiction in habeas cases where the lack of a constitutional
injury is plain.
This

is

See Reid, 369 F.3d at 371.

such

requires

dismissal

Supreme

Court

a

case.

of

this

has

not

Binding
appeal. 2

overruled

circuit

precedent

Because

I

that

believe

precedent,

I

thus
the
must

respectfully dissent.

2

The concurrence’s support of my dissent in Blakely v.
Wards, 738 F.3d 607 (2013) (en banc), is gratifying.
But even
if my reasoning there applied in the very different context
here, we could not follow it given that binding circuit
precedent -- the en banc majority in Blakely -- rejected my
rationale.
28