US v. Christopher Spencer, No. 14-7787 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7787 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER DAMON SPENCER, a/k/a Dog, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cr-00030-RBS-FBS-1) Submitted: September 28, 2015 Decided: October 14, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Damon Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Damon Spencer appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b). This motion raised challenges to Spencer’s conviction and sentence as well as to the adjudication of his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court found that Spencer’s challenges to the § 2255 proceedings were meritless and that, to the extent Spencer’s motion challenged his conviction and sentence, that motion was a successive § 2255 petition that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). “[W]hen requirements a motion for presents successive claims applications subject as well to as the claims cognizable under Rule 60(b), the district court should afford the applicant improper an claims opportunity or having successive application.” 400 (4th omitted). Cir. 2015) to the elect entire between motion deleting treated the as a United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, (brackets and internal quotation marks Because the district court, which did not have the benefit of our decision in McRae, did not afford Spencer such an opportunity here, we vacate its order and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with McRae. oral argument because the facts 2 and legal We dispense with contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 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.
