US v. Eric Dixon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00649-PMD-1,2:13-cv-00300-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999666000]. Mailed to: Eric Dixon. [13-7963]

Appeal: 13-7963

Doc: 18

Filed: 09/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7963

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ERIC BERNARD DIXON, a/k/a Fat Cat,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00649-PMD-1; 2:13-cv-00300-PMD)

Submitted:

September 10, 2015

Decided:

September 24, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Bernard Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7963

Doc: 18

Filed: 09/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Eric Bernard Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking relief
from the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
We deferred action on this appeal pending decision in United
States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2015).

For the reasons

that follow, we vacate the district court’s order and remand.
A

prisoner

proceeding

cannot

unless

a

appeal

a

circuit

final

justice

certificate of appealability (“COA”).
(2012).

order
or

judge

F.3d

a

§ 2255

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

Generally, a COA is required to appeal an order denying

a Rule 60(b) motion in a § 2255 proceeding.
369

in

363,

369

(4th

Cir.

2004).

We

Reid v. Angelone,
recently

clarified,

however, that a COA is not required in the limited circumstance
in which the district court dismisses a Rule 60(b) motion as an
unauthorized, successive habeas petition.

McRae, 793 F.3d at

400.
To file a successive § 2255 motion in the district court, a
prisoner must first obtain preauthorization from this court.
U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h) (2012).
permitted
judgment

to
in

seek
a

Rule

§ 2255

60(b)

relief

proceeding,

“a

28

Although a prisoner is

from

a

district

district

court

court’s
has

no

discretion to rule on a Rule 60(b) motion that is functionally
equivalent to a successive [§ 2255] application.”
2

United States

Appeal: 13-7963

Doc: 18

Filed: 09/24/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003).

Where a Rule

60(b) motion “challenges some defect in the integrity of the
federal habeas proceedings,” it is a true Rule 60(b) motion and
may be reviewed without preauthorization.
397

(internal

quotation

marks

McRae, 793 F.3d at

omitted).

Where

the

motion

“attacks the substance of the federal court’s resolution of a
claim on the merits,” however, it is the functional equivalent
of a successive habeas petition and therefore subject to the
§ 2255(h) preauthorization requirement.

Id. (internal quotation

marks omitted).
In McRae, we reaffirmed our prior holding that, where a
Rule 60(b) 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 an
opportunity to elect between deleting the improper claims or
having the entire motion treated as a successive application.’”
Id. at 400 (quoting Winestock, 340 F.3d at 207).
60(b)

motion

district

was

court’s

such

a

mixed

resolution

of

motion,
some

of

Dixon’s Rule

challenging
his

§ 2255

both
claims

the
on

their merits and arguing that the district judge should have
recused himself from the § 2255 proceedings.
denied

the

motion

summarily

without

opportunity to make the Winestock election.

3

The district court

providing

Dixon

the

Appeal: 13-7963

Doc: 18

Filed: 09/24/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we conclude that the COA requirement does not
apply to the instant appeal, and we vacate the district court’s
order and remand for further proceedings.

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.
VACATED AND REMANDED

4