US v. Courtney Boyd

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:06-cr-00005-MSD-FBS-3,4:11-cv-00140-MSD Copies to all parties and the district court. [999693613]. Mailed to: Courtney Boyd. [15-6959]

Appeal: 15-6959

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6959

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COURTNEY OMAR BOYD, a/k/a Omar,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:06-cr-00005-MSD-FBS-3; 4:11-cv-00140-MSD)

Submitted:

October 22, 2015

Decided:

November 5, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Courtney Omar Boyd, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-6959

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Courtney

Omar

Boyd

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.

The court construed the Rule 60(b) motion

as a successive § 2255 motion.

We have reviewed the record and

conclude that Boyd’s motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion,
but in substance a successive § 2255 motion.
v.

McRae,

793

F.3d

392,

399-400

(4th

See United States

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 motion).

Boyd is therefore not required to

obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district
court’s order.

See McRae, 793 F.3d at 400.

As noted by the

district court, in the absence of prefiling authorization from
this court, it lacked jurisdiction to hear Boyd’s successive §
2255 motion.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).

Additionally,

we

construe

Boyd’s

notice

of

appeal

and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion.
(4th Cir. 2003).

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
In order to obtain authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
either:

2

Appeal: 15-6959

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/05/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
these

criteria.

Boyd’s claims do not satisfy either of

Therefore,

successive § 2255 motion.
court’s order.

we

deny

authorization

to

file

a

Accordingly, we affirm the district

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

3