US v. Ronald Thoma

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:06-cr-00405-RWT-1, 8:11-cv-01049-RWT. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999828784]. Mailed to: Ronald Thomas. [15-8004]

Appeal: 15-8004

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-8004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD DEMETRIOUS THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:06-cr-00405-RWT-1; 8:11-cv-01049-RWT)

Submitted:

May 18, 2016

Decided:

May 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Demetrious Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Arun G. Rao,
Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Greenbelt, Maryland; Paul Nitze, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-8004

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ronald
court’s

Demetrious

order

Thomas

denying

his

seeks

Fed.

R.

to

appeal

Civ.

P.

the

60(b)

district

motion

for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
and

conclude

that

Thomas’

motion

We have reviewed the record
was

not

a

true

motion, but in substance a successive § 2255 motion.

Rule

60(b)

See United

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

Thomas 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 Thomas’ successive § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Additionally,

we

construe

Thomas’

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 evidence that no reasonable
factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
2

Appeal: 15-8004

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases
on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable.
satisfy

28

either

U.S.C.
of

§

these

2255(h).
criteria.

Thomas’

Therefore,

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
district court’s order.

claims

do

we

not
deny

We affirm the

We also 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