Salramon Gonzales v. Ennis Oates, No. 14-6815 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6815 SALRAMON GONZALES, a/k/a Alex Ramirez, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ENNIS T. OATES, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-hc-02045-D) Submitted: July 30, 2015 Decided: October 16, 2015 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Salramon Gonzales, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Salramon order Gonzales denying his seeks Fed. to R. appeal Civ. the P. district 60(b) court’s motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. appealable § 2254 unless petition. circuit a (2012) justice certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, A certificate of 369 The or order judge is issues not a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); F.3d 363, appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. issue 2004). 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 prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims 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 is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. In United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2015), we “address[ed] the question ‘whether, in light of Reid . . . and Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), [a habeas applicant]’s 2 appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion is subject to the certificate of appealability requirement.’” Id. at 396. We held that no certificate of appealability is required for this Court to “address the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as a successive habeas petition.” Id. at 398. Importantly, McRae abrogates the COA requirement only in the narrow situation where the district court construes a Rule 60(b) motion as a successive habeas petition. See id. at 400 n.7 (noting that McRae represents “an abrogation of only a small part of Reid’s reasoning” and that “Reid’s reasoning remains almost entirely intact”). that appellate review Applying Reid and McRae here, we hold of the district court’s order denying Gonzales’ Rule 60(b) motion is subject to the COA requirement. The district court did not recharacterize Gonzales’ postjudgment filing as a successive § 2254 petition, and it otherwise did not reject the motion on jurisdictional grounds. See Allen v. Mitchell, 276 F.3d 183, 187 n.3 (4th Cir. 2001) (“statute of limitations established by § 2244(d) is not jurisdictional”). For the reasons set forth, we conclude that Gonzales has not demonstrated he is entitled to relief. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 3 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 4

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.