US v. Thomas Labuwi, II

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999218095-2] Originating case number: 7:00-cr-00078-F-8 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999654327]. Mailed to: Labuwi. [13-7512]

Appeal: 13-7512

Doc: 16

Filed: 09/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7512

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS WALKER LABUWI, II,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilson.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:00-cr-00078-F-8)

Submitted:

August 24, 2015

Decided:

September 4, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Thomas Walker LaBuwi, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer P. MayParker,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7512

Doc: 16

Filed: 09/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Thomas

Walker

LaBuwi,

II,

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders denying his petition for a writ of error audita querela
as

an

unauthorized

successive

motion

under

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012), and dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration.
order

denying

After review, we affirm the district court’s

LaBuwi’s

petition

for

reasons stated by the district court.

audita

querela

for

the

United States v. LaBuwi,

No. 7:00-cr-00078-F-8 (E.D.N.C. May 7, 2013).
To

the

extent

that

audita

querela

petition

is

an

unauthorized successive § 2255 motion, we deny LaBuwi’s motion
for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).

See

We conclude

that LaBuwi’s Rule 60(b) motion was not a successive § 2255
motion, see United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th
Cir. 2003) (“[A] motion seeking a remedy for some defect in the
collateral

review

motion

reconsider.”),

to

process

will
but

generally
conclude

be
the

deemed
district

a

proper
court’s

denial of the motion does not warrant full review after grant of
a certificate of appealability.

See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d

363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by United
States v. McRae, __ F.3d __, __, No. 13-6878, 2015 WL 4190665,
at *6 n.7 (4th Cir. July 13, 2015).

2

Appeal: 13-7512

Doc: 16

Filed: 09/04/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

3