US v. Deshawn R. Rivers, No. 16-6719 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6719 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DESHAWN R. RIVERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:12-cr-00148-PMD-1; 2:15-cv-02511-PMD) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deshawn R. Rivers, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Deshawn R. Rivers appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to reconsider the court’s earlier order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Rivers has failed to show reversible error on appeal or establish grounds for a certificate of appealability. unless a circuit appealability. justice or The order is not appealable judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). certificate of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484–85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rivers has not made the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to deny Rivers’ motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because the claims he raised challenged 2 the validity of his convictions, and thus the motion should have been construed as a successive § 2255 motion. Crosby, 545 differentiate U.S. a 524, true Rule 531–32 60(b) (2005) motion See Gonzalez v. (explaining from an how to unauthorized second or successive habeas corpus petition); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003) (same). In the absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before deny a certificate of appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
