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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?