Case ID: f-appx_55/html/0193-01.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. Carl HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7238.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2002.
    Decided Feb. 3, 2003.
    Carl Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Carl Harrison appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of a previous order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because Harrison only raises claims that are identical to those raised in his first habeas petition or that could have been raised in that petition, Harrison’s Rule 60(b) motion was actually a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As the district court stated in denying Harrison’s motion, Harrison failed to comply with the statutory procedures governing successive petitions. See United States v. Harrison, Criminal No: 2:97-00143-04 (S.D.W.Va. July 24, 2002). We agree. Harrison is not entitled to a certificate of appealability from this determination because he cannot make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 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.