US v. Winston Poyer
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999956070-2] Originating case number: 3:04-cr-00162-FDW-1,3:16-cv-00672-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-7340]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
WINSTON DARIN POYER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00162-FDW-1; 3:16-cv-00672-FDW)
February 23, 2017
February 28, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Winston Darin Poyer, Appellant Pro Se.
Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.
certificate of appealability is not required in order for us to
address the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a
“Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive habeas petition.”
United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
review of the record confirms that Poyer sought successive § 2255
relief, without authorization from this court, and we therefore
hold that the district court properly concluded that it lacked
§§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h) (2012).
Thus, we affirm the district
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion.
See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003).
In order to obtain authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
(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
Pg: 3 of 3
(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).
Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive
§ 2255 motion.
Poyer’s claims do not satisfy either of these
We grant Poyer’s motion to proceed in forma
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.
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?