US v. Deshawn R. River

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cr-00148-PMD-1,2:15-cv-02511-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999952310]. Mailed to: Rivers. [16-6719]

Appeal: 16-6719

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6719

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DESHAWN R. RIVERS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:12-cr-00148-PMD-1; 2:15-cv-02511-PMD)

Submitted:

October 18, 2016

Decided:

October 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deshawn R. Rivers, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert Nicholas Bianchi,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6719

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Deshawn

R.

Rivers

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying relief on his motion to reconsider the court’s earlier
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

Rivers has

failed to show reversible error on appeal or establish grounds
for a certificate of appealability.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The order is not appealable

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

certificate

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller–El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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
Rivers has not made the requisite showing.

The district court

lacked jurisdiction to deny Rivers’ motion to reconsider under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because the claims he raised challenged
2

Appeal: 16-6719

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/21/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

the validity of his convictions, and thus the motion should have
been construed as a successive § 2255 motion.
Crosby,

545

differentiate

U.S.
a

524,

true

Rule

531–32
60(b)

(2005)
motion

See Gonzalez v.

(explaining
from

an

how

to

unauthorized

second or successive habeas corpus petition); United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003) (same).

In the

absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the district
court lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Accordingly,

we

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

deny

a

certificate

of

appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3