Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07786/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07786-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7786

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL LAWRENCE BRANCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District 

Judge. (1:05-cr-00016-CCB-1; 1:10-cv-00079-CCB)

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lawrence Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7786 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lawrence Branch appeals the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from 

judgment with respect to the denial of his previously filed 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and 

conclude that Branch’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. 2005); 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). Branch therefore is not required to 

obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district 

court’s order. McRae, 793 F.3d at 400. In the absence of 

prefiling authorization from this court, the district court 

lacked jurisdiction to hear Branch’s successive § 2255 motion. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).

Additionally, we construe Branch’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 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 

Appeal: 15-7786 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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). Branch’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: 15-7786 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3