Filed: May 20, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-8004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD DEMETRIOUS THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:06-cr-00405-RWT-1; 8:11-cv-01049-RWT) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Demetrio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-8004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD DEMETRIOUS THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:06-cr-00405-RWT-1; 8:11-cv-01049-RWT) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Demetriou..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-8004
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD DEMETRIOUS THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:06-cr-00405-RWT-1; 8:11-cv-01049-RWT)
Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Demetrious Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Arun G. Rao,
Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Greenbelt, Maryland; Paul Nitze, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Demetrious Thomas seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying 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. We have reviewed the record
and conclude that Thomas’ 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, 399-400 (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 motion). Thomas therefore is not required to
obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district
court’s order.
McRae, 793 F.3d at 400. In the absence of
prefiling authorization from this court, the district court
lacked jurisdiction to hear Thomas’ successive § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Additionally, we construe Thomas’ notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
either: (1) newly discovered evidence that would be sufficient
to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable
factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
2
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases
on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Thomas’ claims do not
satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We affirm the
district court’s order. We also 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.
AFFIRMED
3