Craig Scott v. Charles Williams

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999672491-2] Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00133-GMG-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999738541]. Mailed to: Craig Scott. [15-7447]

Appeal: 15-7447

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7447

CRAIG L. SCOTT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES WILLIAMS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00133-GMG-JES)

Submitted:

January 14, 2016

Decided:

January 20, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig Lamont Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7447

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Craig L. Scott, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s
judge

order
and

accepting

denying

the

relief

recommendation
on

his

28

of

the

U.S.C.

magistrate

§ 2241

(2012)

petition, and a subsequent order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motion as an unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion,
and dismissing it on that basis.

We conclude that the district

court

Scott’s

properly

denied

relief

on

§

2241

petition

and

dismissed his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court and grant Scott’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.

See Scott v. Williams, No. 3:14-cv-

00133-GMG-JES (N.D.W. Va. June 17, 2015; Sept. 3, 2015); United
States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that
a certificate of appealability is unnecessary where a district
court

dismisses

a

Rule

60(b)

motion

as

an

unauthorized

successive habeas motion).
Additionally,

we

construe

Scott’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: 15-7447

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/20/2016

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.

successive

§

2255

Scott’s claims do not satisfy either of

Therefore,
motion.

we
We

deny

authorization

dispense

with

to

oral

file

a

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