US v. Raymon Higg

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 3:04-cr-00867-CMC-1, 3:16-cv-02424-CMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000104214]. Mailed to: Raymon Anthony Higgs. [17-6288]

Appeal: 17-6288

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/21/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6288

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMON ANTHONY HIGGS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00867-CMC-1;
3:16-cv-02424-CMC)

Submitted: June 12, 2017

Decided: June 21, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymon Anthony Higgs, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6288

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/21/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Raymon Anthony Higgs seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
Higgs previously filed a § 2255 motion that was adjudicated on the merits. See
Higgs v. United States, Nos. 3:04-cr-00867-CMC; 3:06-cv-01829-CMC (D.S.C. Mar. 15,
2007) (unpublished). Thus, Higgs’ current § 2255 motion is successive. Higgs has not
obtained authorization from this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2012), to file a
successive § 2255 motion. In the absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the
district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion.

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED

2