Case ID: f-appx_450/html/0430-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leondrus McBRIDE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-40034
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 21, 2011.
    Joseph Robert Batte, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Leondrus McBride, Jr., Atlanta, GA, pro se.
    Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Leondrus McBride, Jr., federal prisoner # 04496-078, requests a certificate of ap-pealability (COA) to appeal the denial of two motions, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), in which he sought to vacate a judgment denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. A COA is required because the denial of Rule 60(b) relief was “the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); see Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir.2007).

McBride argues that reasonable jurists could debate the denial of his Rule 60(b) motions because in the initial § 2255 proceeding the district court did not address a claim that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to challenge an allegedly invalid warrant and it failed to rule on two motions for production of grand jury transcripts. The district court denied the motions as unauthorized successive § 2255 motions. We agree that the motions were unauthorized successive petitions such that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider them. We dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773 (5th Cir.2000).

McBride also moves to vacate the district court’s denial of § 2255 relief on the ground that the judgment lacks finality because it did not resolve all pending motions. That motion is denied.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO VACATE DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.