US v. Stacy Demoris Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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