US v. Larry William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:92-cr-00083-AVB-1,1:08-cv-00722-CMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999785618]. Mailed to: Larry Williams. [15-7587]

Appeal: 15-7587

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7587

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY SINCLAIR WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O'Grady, District
Judge. (1:92-cr-00083-AVB-1; 1:08-cv-00722-CMH)

Submitted:

March 29, 2016

Decided:

March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Sinclair Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Lawrence Joseph
Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7587

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Larry Sinclair Williams 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 and denying his motions for a reduction of
his sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2012), and for correction of
clerical error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
The court construed the Rule 60(b) motion as a successive
§ 2255 motion.
Williams’

We have reviewed the record and conclude that

motion

was

not

a

true

Rule

60(b)

substance a successive § 2255 motion.

motion,

but

in

See United States v.

McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez
v.

Crosby,

545

differentiate

U.S.

531-32

true

a

524,
Rule

60(b)

successive habeas motion).

(2005)
motion

(explaining
from

an

how

to

unauthorized

Williams 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 Williams’ successive
§

2255

motion.

Additionally,

we

See
construe

28 U.S.C.

§

2244(b)(3)

Williams’

notice

of

(2012).

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
2

Appeal: 15-7587

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
either:
(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 and affirm.
Our

review

of

the

district

court’s

denial

of

Williams’

§ 3582 motion and Rule 36 relief reveals no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court’s
order.

United

States

v.

Williams,

Nos.

1:92-cr-00083-AVB-1;

1:08-cv-00722-CMH (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2015).
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3