US v. Dickinson Adionser

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999560797-2] in 15-6405 Originating case number: 2:03-cr-00081-HCM-JEB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999677403]. Mailed to: Dickinson Adionser. [15-6355, 15-6405]

Appeal: 15-6355

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/14/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6355

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DICKINSON NORMAN ADIONSER, a/k/a D.C. Black,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-6405

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DICKINSON NORMAN ADIONSER, a/k/a D.C. Black,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:03-cr-00081-HCM-JEB-1; 2:10-cv-00085HCM-DEM)

Submitted:

September 17, 2015

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

October 14, 2015

HAMILTON,

Senior

Appeal: 15-6355

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/14/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Dickinson Norman Adionser, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James
Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6355

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/14/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Dickinson
order

Norman

entered

Adionser

December

23,

appeals

2014,

the

construing

district
his

court’s

motion

for

relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) as a motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), and dismissing it as successive.
He also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
reconsider the court’s order of September 9, 2014.

Adionser

further appeals the district court’s order of March 18, 2015,
denying his motion to reconsider the December 23, 2014 order.
Upon review of the record, we affirm the district court’s denial
of

relief

September

on
9,

Adionser’s
2014.

With

motion
regard

to

reconsider

to

the

its

court’s

order

of

decision

to

construe Adionser’s motion for relief from judgment as a § 2255
motion, and the related denial of the motion to reconsider, we
vacate

the

district

court’s

orders

and

remand

for

further

proceedings.
“[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’

successive

is

not

habeas

a

true

Rule

[application]”

60(b)
and

motion,
is

but

subject

rather
to

a

the

preauthorization requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2012)
for successive applications.

United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d

392, 397 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S.
524, 531-32 (2005)).

By contrast, a “Rule 60(b) motion that
3

Appeal: 15-6355

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/14/2015

Pg: 4 of 5

challenges ‘some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas
proceedings’ . . . is a true Rule 60(b) motion, and is not
subject

to

Gonzalez,

the
545

“‘presents

preauthorization
U.S.

claims

at

requirement.”

531-32).

subject

to

the

Where,

Id.

however,

requirements

for

(quoting
a

motion

successive

applications as well as claims cognizable under Rule 60(b),’”
such a motion is a mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2255 motion.

See id. at

400 (quoting United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th
Cir. 2003)).
In his motion for relief from judgment, Adionser sought a
remedy for the perceived fraud inherent in his § 2255 proceeding
and

raised

direct

attacks

on

his

conviction

and

sentence.

Accordingly, the motion was a mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2255 motion.
See McRae, 793 F.3d at 397, 400-01; Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532
n.5 (noting that “[f]raud on the federal habeas court” is an
example of an alleged procedural defect that may provide the
basis for a true Rule 60(b) motion); Winestock, 340 F.3d at 207
(stating
conviction

that
or

“a

motion

sentence

directly

will

usually

attacking
amount

the
to

a

prisoner’s
successive

application”).
The district court did not afford Adionser the opportunity
to elect between deleting his successive § 2255 claims from his
true Rule 60(b) claims or having his entire motion treated as a
successive § 2255 motion.

See McRae, 793 F.3d at 400 (“This
4

Appeal: 15-6355

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/14/2015

Pg: 5 of 5

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 an opportunity to elect between deleting
the improper claims or having the entire motion treated as a
successive application.’” (quoting Winestock, 340 F.3d at 207)).
We therefore vacate the district court’s orders and remand for
further proceedings.
We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

5