US v. Steve Dia


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:04-cr-00259-HEH-2,3:17-cv-00341-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000129006]. Mailed to: Steve Dias. [17-6635]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6635 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/01/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6635 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVE DIAS, a/k/a Troy, a/k/a O’Neil Guthrie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00259-HEH-2; 3:17-cv-00341HEH) Submitted: July 27, 2017 Decided: August 1, 2017 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steve Dias, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Arthur Garnett, Katherine Lee Martin, Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Heather Hart Mansfield, Olivia L. Norman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6635 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/01/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Steve Dias appeals the district court’s order construing 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 as a successive § 2255 motion, and dismissing it on that basis. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly determined that Dias’ motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)” motion, but in substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-400 (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 corpus motion). Therefore, we conclude that Dias is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order. See Mcrae, 793 F.3d at 400. 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, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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?