FILED
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                                     TENTH CIRCUIT                          December 26, 2012

                                                                            Elisabeth A. Shumaker
                                                                                Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

             Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.                                                           No. 12-6206
                                                    (D.C. No. 5:01-CR-00181-M-2)
JASON TODD DAVIS,                                           (W.D. Okla.)

             Defendant - Appellant.




           ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
         AND DENYING LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE
                       28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION


Before LUCERO, O'BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.


      In 2008, Jason Todd Davis filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective

assistance of counsel. Approximately two and one half years later he sought to amend

the § 2255 motion. The district court denied the relief originally sought and denied leave

to amend because the request was not timely presented. Davis sought a Certificate of

Appealability (COA) on both issues, which we denied. United States v. Davis, 426 F.

App’x 622, 625 (10th Cir. 2011).

      About a year after our decision, Davis filed a Rule 60(b) motion resurrecting his

arguments about the district court’s refusal to permit him to amend his § 2255 motion.

He included four new claims under § 2255. The district court denied the motion. Davis
appealed from the decision.

      A COA is required to appeal from the denial of a true Rule 60(b) motion. Spitznas

v. Boone, 

, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006). Davis did not seek a COA, but we treat

his notice of appeal and brief as an implied request for a COA. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2).

We deny his request for a COA.

      Davis’s new § 2255 claims are second or successive, requiring our approval before

they can be addressed by the district court. In re Shines, 

, 1332 (10th Cir.

2012). His claims are utterly without merit; we deny leave to pursue them.

      DISMISSED.

                                         Entered by the Court:

                                         Terrence L. O’Brien
                                         United States Circuit Judge




                                           -2-