US v. Christopher Spencer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00030-RBS-FBS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999677347]. Mailed to: Christopher Spencer. [14-7787]

Appeal: 14-7787

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/14/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7787

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER DAMON SPENCER, a/k/a Dog,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00030-RBS-FBS-1)

Submitted:

September 28, 2015

Decided:

October 14, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Damon Spencer, Appellant Pro Se.
Sherrie Scott
Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7787

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/14/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Christopher Damon Spencer appeals the denial of his motion
for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b).
This

motion

raised

challenges

to

Spencer’s

conviction

and

sentence as well as to the adjudication of his prior 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion.

The district court found that Spencer’s

challenges to the § 2255 proceedings were meritless and that, to
the

extent

Spencer’s

motion

challenged

his

conviction

and

sentence, that motion was a successive § 2255 petition that the
district court lacked jurisdiction to hear.

See United States

v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003).
“[W]hen
requirements

a

motion

for

presents

successive

claims

applications

subject
as

well

to
as

the

claims

cognizable under Rule 60(b), the district court should afford
the

applicant

improper

an

claims

opportunity
or

having

successive application.”
400

(4th

omitted).

Cir.

2015)

to

the

elect
entire

between
motion

deleting
treated

the

as

a

United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392,

(brackets

and

internal

quotation

marks

Because the district court, which did not have the

benefit of our decision in McRae, did not afford Spencer such an
opportunity here, we vacate its order and remand the case for
further proceedings consistent with McRae.
oral

argument

because

the

facts

2

and

legal

We dispense with
contentions

are

Appeal: 14-7787

Doc: 9

adequately

Filed: 10/14/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

3