US v. Hubert Washington, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00444-RBH-1,4:14-cv-01654-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999829943] [16-6113]

Appeal: 16-6113

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6113

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HUBERT LEE WASHINGTON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:12-cr-00444-RBH-1; 4:14-cv-01654-RBH)

Submitted:

May 18, 2016

Decided:

May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hubert Lee Washington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Robert Frank
Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Arthur Bradley
Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6113

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Hubert Lee Washington, Jr., appeals the district court’s
text order denying his motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(4) filed in his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The

district

court

found

that

Washington

entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b).

failed

to

show

To the extent that

Washington sought relief under § 2255, however, the district
court noted that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the
matter as the § 2255 action was successive and he failed to
obtain

authorization

from

this

court

to

file

a

successive

action.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Washington’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. 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).
court,

In the absence of prefiling authorization from this
the

Washington’s
§ 2244(b)(3)

district

court

successive
(2012).

§

lacked
2255

jurisdiction

motion.

Additionally,

we

See

construe

to
28

hear
U.S.C.

Washington’s

notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a
second or successive § 2255 motion.
340

F.3d

200,

208

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Winestock,

2003).
2

In

order

to

obtain

Appeal: 16-6113

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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) 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).
of these criteria.

Washington’s claims do not satisfy either
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