US v. Franesiour Kemache-Webster

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:10-cr-00654-RWT-1,8:14-cv-02005-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000031112]. Mailed to: Franesiour Kemache-Webster. [16-7208]

Appeal: 16-7208

Doc: 15

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7208

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANESIOUR B. KEMACHE-WEBSTER, a/k/a Bryan Webster,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:10-cr-00654-RWT-1; 8:14-cv-02005-RWT)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franesiour B. Kemache-Webster, Appellant Pro Se.
LisaMarie
Freitas, Kristi Noel O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7208

Doc: 15

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Franesiour B. Kemache-Webster appeals the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration
of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion. *

We have reviewed the record and conclude

that Kemache-Webster’s motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion,
but in substance a successive and unauthorized § 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

authorization

from

motion).
this

In

the

absence

of

prefiling

court,

the

district

court

lacked

jurisdiction to hear Kemache-Webster’s successive § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).

Accordingly, we affirm.

Additionally, we construe Kemache-Webster’s notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion.
Cir. 2003).

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th

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

*

We treat the district court’s denial of Kemache-Webster’s
Rule 60(b) motion as a dismissal because that court did not have
jurisdiction to consider his successive claims.
2

Appeal: 16-7208

Doc: 15

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

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). Kemache-Webster’s claims do not satisfy either of these
criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive

§ 2255 motion.
We 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