US v. Stacy Demoris Johnson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00332-WO-5,1:16-cv-01199-WO-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000027969]. Mailed to: Stacy Demoris Johnson. [16-7777]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7777 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. STACY DEMORIS JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00332-WO-5; 1:16-cv-01199WO-LPA) Submitted: February 16, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: DUNCAN, February 22, 2017 Circuit Judge, and Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stacy Demoris Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Childs, Sandra Jane Hairston, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7777 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Stacy Demoris Johnson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, construing Johnson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district § 2255 court’s (2012) order motion as denying a successive dismissing it on that basis. conclude that the relief on his § 2255 28 U.S.C. motion, and We have reviewed the record and district court correctly determined that Johnson’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)” motion, but in substance McRae, a 793 successive F.3d 392, § 2255 motion. 397-400 (4th See Cir. United States 2015); see v. 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 corpus motion). Therefore, we conclude that Johnson is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order. 400. See Mcrae, 793 F.3d at The district court also correctly concluded that in the absence of prefiling authorization, it lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Accordingly, dispense with we oral affirm the argument district because 2 court’s the facts order. and We legal Appeal: 16-7777 Doc: 9 contentions Filed: 02/22/2017 are adequately Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in 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?