US v. Josiah Watson, No. 14-7854 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7854 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSIAH TIONDRA WATSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-00200-RBS-DEM-2; 2:14-cv-00128-RBS) Submitted: August 4, 2015 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, September 11, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Josiah Tiondra Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Cameron Rountree, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Josiah Tiondra Watson appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order § 2255 (2012) motion. denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Watson’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)” motion, but in substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. McRae, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4190665, at *5-*6 (4th Cir. July 13, 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 corpus motion). Therefore, we conclude that Watson is not required to obtain a certificate order. of appealability to appeal the district See Mcrae, 2015 WL 4190665, at *5-*6. court’s However, in the absence of prefiling authorization, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Accordingly, we deny Watson’s motion for a certificate of appealability as moot and affirm the district court’s order. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.