Case ID: f-appx_615/html/0156-02.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. Thomas Walker LABUWI, II, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-7512.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 24, 2015.
    Decided: Sept. 4, 2015.
    
      Thomas Walker LaBuwi, II, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Walker LaBuwi, II, appeals the district court’s orders denying his petition for a writ of error audita querela as an unauthorized successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), and dismissing his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. After review, we affirm the district court’s order denying LaBuwi’s petition for audita querela for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. LaBuwi, No. 7:00-cr-00078-F-8 (E.D.N.C. May 7, 2013).

To the extent that audita querela petition is an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion, we deny LaBuwi’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). We conclude that LaBuwi’s Rule 60(b) motion was not a successive § 2255 motion, see United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.2003) (“[A] motion seeking a remedy for some defect in the collateral review process will generally be deemed a proper motion to recon-sider.”), but conclude the district court’s denial of the motion does not warrant full review after grant of a certificate of ap-pealability. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-400 n. 7 (4th Cir.2015).

Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.