US v. Michael Lawrence Branch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:05-cr-00016-CCB-1,1:10-cv-00079-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999779372]. Mailed to: Michael Lawrence Branch FCI ALLENWOOD-LOW FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1000 White Deer, PA 17887-0000. [15-7786]

Appeal: 15-7786

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7786

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL LAWRENCE BRANCH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:05-cr-00016-CCB-1; 1:10-cv-00079-CCB)

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Decided:

March 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lawrence Branch, Appellant Pro Se.
Allen F. Loucks,
Assistant United States Attorney, Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7786

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael Lawrence Branch appeals the district court’s order
denying

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

motion

for

relief

from

judgment with respect to the denial of his previously filed 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

We have reviewed the record and

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

See United

States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2005); 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).

Branch therefore is not required to

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

McRae, 793 F.3d at 400.

authorization

from

this

court,

In the absence of
the

district

court

lacked jurisdiction to hear Branch’s successive § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Additionally,

we

construe

Branch’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:
(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing

2

Appeal: 15-7786

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

evidence that no reasonable factfinder
found the movant guilty of the offense; or

would

have

(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.

Branch’s claims do not satisfy either of

Therefore,

we

deny

authorization

to

file

a

successive § 2255 motion and affirm the district court’s order.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3