US v. Kevin Lamont Walker
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expedite decision [999555257-2] Originating case number: 4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1,4:13-cv-00081-RBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999666858]. Mailed to: Walker. [15-6320]
Appeal: 15-6320
Doc: 6
Filed: 09/28/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6320
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN LAMONT WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1; 4:13-cv-00081RBS)
Submitted:
August 10, 2015
Decided:
September 28, 2015
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Lamont Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6320
Doc: 6
Filed: 09/28/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Kevin
Lamont
Walker
appeals
the
district
court’s
order
denying 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.
We have reviewed the record and conclude
that Walker’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)” motion, but in
substance a successive § 2255 motion.
See United States v.
McRae, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4190665 at *5-*6 (4th Cir. July 13,
2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005)
(explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from
an unauthorized successive habeas corpus motion).
Therefore, we
conclude that Walker is not required to obtain a certificate of
appealability to appeal the district court’s order.
2015 WL 4190665, at *5-*6.
See Mcrae,
However, in the absence of prefiling
authorization, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear a
successive § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Accordingly, we deny Walker’s motion to expedite the appeal
and 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?