US v. Joseph Monroe, No. 15-6425 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6425 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH EDWARDS MONROE, a/k/a Slim, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00041-NKM-4; 3:13-cv-80801-NKMRSB) Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Edwards Monroe, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Spodick Healey, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph Edwards Monroe appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) motion. court properly characterized this motion as The district an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that a certificate of appealability is unnecessary where a district court dismisses a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive habeas motion). Additionally, we construe Monroe’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. (4th Cir. 2003). United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). these criteria. Monroe’s claims do not satisfy either of Therefore, we successive § 2255 motion. 2 deny authorization to file a 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. AFFIRMED 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.
