US v. Shannon William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:02-cr-00085-JRS-1,3:05-cv-00100-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999684758]. Mailed to: S. Williams. [15-7024]

Appeal: 15-7024

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7024

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHANNON DERRELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Doe,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00085-JRS-1; 3:05-cv-00100-JRS)

Submitted:

October 20, 2015

Decided:

October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shannon Derrell Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
David Thomas
Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
George Alfred Townsend, GEORGE A. TOWNSEND, IV, PLLC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7024

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Shannon Derrell Williams appeals the district court’s order
construing

his

self-styled

“motion

for

declaratory

judgment

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201” and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion

as

successive

28

U.S.C.

dismissing them as unauthorized.
and

conclude

that

Williams’

successive § 2255 motions.

§ 2255

(2012)

motions

and

We have reviewed the record
motions

were,

in

substance,

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

392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545
U.S. 524, 532 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true
Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized successive habeas corpus
motion).

We thus conclude that Williams is not required to

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

See McRae, 793 F.3d at 400.

However, in the

absence of prefiling authorization, the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider Williams’ successive motions.
U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A)

(2012).

Accordingly,

we

See 28

affirm

the

district court’s order.
Additionally, we construe Williams’ 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: 15-7024

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/23/2015

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.

Williams’ claims do not satisfy either of

Therefore,

we

deny

authorization

to

file

a

successive § 2255 motion.
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