US v. Ramone Ethridge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 5:10-cr-00206-BO-2, 5:13-cv-00312-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999962490]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-6213]

Appeal: 16-6213

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6213

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAMONE HAISON ETHRIDGE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00206-BO-2; 5:13-cv-00312-BO)

Submitted:

October 18, 2016

Decided:

November 4, 2016

Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ramone Haison Ethridge, Appellant Pro Se.
S. Katherine
Burnette, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY,
Dennis
Michael
Duffy,
Jennifer
P.
May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6213

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ramone Haison Ethridge seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his self-styled motion for correction under Fed.
R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

-

which

sought

correction

of

the

district

court’s judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion - and the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion.
or

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice

judge

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). *
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

*

of

a

When the

In United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2015),
we “address[ed] the question whether, in light of Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), and Gonzalez v. Crosby,
545 U.S. 524 (2005), [a habeas applicant]’s appeal of the
district court’s dismissal of his Rule 60(b) motion as an
unauthorized successive § 2255 motion is subject to the
certificate of appealability requirement.” Id. at 396 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
We held that no certificate of
appealability is required for this court to “address the
district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b)
motion as a successive habeas petition.”
Id. at 399.
Importantly, McRae abrogates the certificate of appealability
requirement only in the narrow situation where the district
court construes a Rule 60(b) motion as a successive habeas
application.
See id. at 400 n.7 (noting that McRae represents
“an abrogation of only a small part of Reid’s reasoning” and
that
“Reid’s
reasoning
remains
almost
entirely
intact”).
Applying Reid and McRae here, we hold that appellate review of
the district court’s order denying Ethridge’s Rule 60(b) motion
is subject to the certificate of appealability requirement. The
district court did not recharacterize Ethridge’s postjudgment
filing as a successive § 2255 motion, and it otherwise did not
reject the motion on jurisdictional grounds.

2

Appeal: 16-6213

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/04/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Ethridge has not made the requisite showing.
deny

a

certificate

We dispense

with

contentions

are

of

oral

appealability
argument

adequately

and

because

presented

in

Accordingly, we

dismiss

the

the

facts

the

materials

appeal.

and

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3