Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07024/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07024-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7024

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHANNON DERRELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Doe,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior

District Judge. (3:02-cr-00085-JRS-1; 3:05-cv-00100-JRS)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shannon Derrell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas 

Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, 

George Alfred Townsend, GEORGE A. TOWNSEND, IV, PLLC, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7024 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Shannon Derrell Williams appeals the district court’s order 

construing his self-styled “motion for declaratory judgment 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201” and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 

motion as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions and 

dismissing them as unauthorized. We have reviewed the record 

and conclude that Williams’ motions were, in substance,

successive § 2255 motions. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 

392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 

U.S. 524, 532 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true 

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

motion). We thus conclude that Williams is not required to 

obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district 

court’s order. See McRae, 793 F.3d at 400. However, in the 

absence of prefiling authorization, the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to consider Williams’ successive motions. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2012). Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s order. 

Additionally, we construe Williams’ 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:

Appeal: 15-7024 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

(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). Williams’ claims do not satisfy either of 

these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion.

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: 15-7024 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3