United States v. Winkles, No. 13-56376 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment following the denial of his section 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court concluded that a certificate of appealability (COA) is required to appeal the denial of a legitimate Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment arising out of the denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion; a COA should only issue for the appeal arising from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in a section 2255 proceeding if the movant shows that (1) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion and (2) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the underlying section 2255 motion states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right; and, in this case, defendant is not entitled to a COA where the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reopen the time for appeal and the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider defendant's amended section 2255 motion. Accordingly, the court denied the COA and dismissed the appeal.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Clifford Marcus Winkles’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment following the denial of his section 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The panel held that a certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a legitimate Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment arising out of the denial of a section 2255 motion. The panel held that a COA should only issue for the appeal arising from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in a section 2255 proceeding if the movant shows that (1) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion and (2) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the underlying section 2255 motion states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. The panel held that Winkles is not entitled to a COA because he has not made a substantial showing that the district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion as to the two aspects of the Rule 60(b) motion he presses on appeal: (1) whether the district court should have reopened the time to appeal its denial of his original section UNITED STATES V. WINKLES 3 2255 motion and (2) whether the district court should have considered his purported amended section 2255 motion.
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.