US v. Jeremy Mouzon, No. 09-7300 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEREMY MOUZON, a/k/a Ferris Earl Scott Green, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00896-PMD-1; 2:07-cv-70041-PMD) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeremy Mouzon, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeremy orders Mouzon denying (1) seeks his Fed. to R. appeal the Civ. P. district 60(b) court s motion for reconsideration of the district court s prior denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion and (2) his motion to alter or amend. The orders are not appealable unless a judge circuit justice appealability. 369 F.3d or issues a certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mouzon has not made the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to deny Mouzon s Rule 60(b) motion on the merits because the claim he raises challenges the validity of his sentence and thus successive § 2255 motion. should have been construed as a See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 2 531-32 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized second or successive habeas corpus petition); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003) (same). In the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). a successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, and dismiss the appeal. we deny a certificate of appealability We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
