Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06113/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06113-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6113

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HUBERT LEE WASHINGTON, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:12-cr-00444-RBH-1; 4:14-cv-01654-RBH)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hubert Lee Washington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank 

Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Arthur Bradley 

Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6113 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Hubert Lee Washington, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

text order denying his motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(4) filed in his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

The district court found that Washington failed to show 

entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b). To the extent that 

Washington sought relief under § 2255, however, the district 

court noted that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the 

matter as the § 2255 action was successive and he failed to 

obtain authorization from this court to file a successive 

action.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Washington’s 

motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion, but was, in substance, 

a successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. McRae, 793 

F.3d 392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 

545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a 

true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized successive habeas

motion). In the absence of prefiling authorization from this 

court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear 

Washington’s successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3) (2012). Additionally, we construe Washington’s 

notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a 

second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 

340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain 

Appeal: 16-6113 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner 

must assert claims based on either:

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new 

rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases 

on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was 

previously unavailable. 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Washington’s claims do not satisfy either 

of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion 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 the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-6113 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3