US v. William Hazel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 2:92-cr-00163-1,2:14-cv-00113-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999670183].. [15-6384]

Appeal: 15-6384

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6384

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM HAZEL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (2:92-cr-00163-1; 2:14-cv-00113-REP)

Submitted:

September 17, 2015

Decided:

October 1, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Curtis Bosse, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6384

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/01/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
William Hazel appeals the district court’s order dismissing
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.
Hazel’s

motion

We have reviewed the record and conclude that
was

not

a

“true

Rule

substance a successive § 2255 motion.
McRae,

793

F.3d

392,

399-400

(4th

60(b)”

motion,

but

in

See United States v.
Cir.

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

Hazel is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability
to appeal the district court’s order.
400.

See McRae, 793 F.3d at

However, in the absence of prefiling authorization, the

district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Hazel’s successive
§ 2255 motion.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).

we affirm the district court’s order.

Accordingly,

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.
AFFIRMED

2