US v. Michael Dyson, No. 13-7452 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7452 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL CASSANOVA DYSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00021-FPS-JES-6; 5:11-cv00017-FPS-JES) Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Cassanova Dyson, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Cassanova Dyson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court s prior judgment * in light of Alleyne v. United States, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or The order is judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling in debatable, and that the motion states claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. * The Rule 60(b) motion was filed in Dyson s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) post-conviction proceeding, in which Dyson sought relief from his sentence. 2 We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dyson has not made the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to deny Dyson s Rule 60(b) motion on the merits because the claim he raised challenged the validity of his sentence, and thus the motion should have been construed as a successive Crosby, 545 differentiate 28 U.S. a U.S.C. 524, true § 2255 motion. 531-32 Rule (2005) 60(b) motion See Gonzalez (explaining from an how v. to unauthorized second or successive habeas corpus petition); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003) (same). absence of pre-filing authorization from this In the court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). 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 this 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.
