United States v. Harris

107 F. App'x 359

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

George Harris appeals from the order of the district court denying his motion to reconsider filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). An individual seeking to file a “second or successive” motion for collateral relief must first move in the court of appeals for an order directing the district court to consider his motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2000). “The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of [§ 2244(b) ].” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C). This requirement also applies to motions made under Rule 60(b) where permitting the movant to proceed without authorization under § 2244 would allow him to “evade the bar against relitigation of claims presented in a prior application.” United State v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 203 (4th Cir.2003). In this matter, Harris failed to seek authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider the claims, and it properly dismissed the motion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

* To the extent Harris’ notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as an application for authorization under § 2244, we deny authorization because Harris does not allege newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactively applicable by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. See Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208.