Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0111-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Lamont WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-6320.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 10, 2015.
    Decided: Sept. 28, 2015.
    Kevin Lamont Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Lamont Walker appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Walker’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)” motion, but in substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 398-400 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized successive habeas corpus motion). Therefore, we conclude that Walker is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order. See McRae, 793 F.3d at 398-400. However, in the absence of pre-filing authorization, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).

Accordingly, we deny Walker’s motion to expedite the appeal and affirm the district court’s order. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.