Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06656/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06656-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6656

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:11-cr-00087-LO-1; 1:11-cr-00348-LO-1; 1:12-cv-00132-

LO)

Submitted: September 30, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Otis Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Scott Faulconer, 

Peter August Frandsen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Jack Hanly, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6656 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/05/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Otis Matthews appeals from the district court’s 

April 10, 2015 order granting in part and denying in part his 

motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) seeking reconsideration

of the denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) relief. We vacate

the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

“[A] Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas proceeding that attacks

‘the substance of the federal court’s resolution of a claim

on the merits’ is not a true Rule 60(b) motion, but rather a 

successive habeas [application]” and is subject to the 

preauthorization requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2012) 

for successive applications. United States v. McRae, 793

F.3d 392, 397 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby,

545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005)). By contrast, a “Rule 60(b) motion 

that challenges ‘some defect in the integrity of the federal 

habeas proceedings’ . . . is a true Rule 60(b) motion, and

is not subject to the preauthorization requirement.” Id. 

(quoting Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 531-32). Where, however, a

motion “‘presents claims subject to the requirements for

successive applications as well as claims cognizable under

Rule 60(b),’” such a motion is a mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2255

motion. See id. at 400 (quoting United States v. Winestock,

340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003)).

Appeal: 15-6656 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/05/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

 In his motion for correction, Matthews sought a remedy for 

perceived flaws in his § 2255 proceeding and raised direct 

attacks on his conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the

motion was a mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2255 motion. See McRae, 793

F.3d at 397, 400-01; Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532 n.4 (holding

that a movant files a true Rule 60(b) motion “when he . . .

asserts that a previous ruling which precluded a merits

determination was in error”); Winestock, 340 F.3d at 207

(stating that “a motion directly attacking the prisoner’s 

conviction or sentence will usually amount to a successive 

application”).

The district court did not afford Matthews the

opportunity to elect between deleting his successive § 2255 

claims from his true Rule 60(b) claims or having his entire

motion treated as a successive § 2255 motion. See McRae,

793 F.3d at 400 (“This Court has made clear that ‘[w]hen [a] 

motion presents claims subject to the requirements for

successive applications as well as claims cognizable under Rule 

60(b), the district court should afford the applicant an

opportunity to elect between deleting the improper claims or

having the entire motion treated as a successive

application.’” (quoting Winestock, 340 F.3d at 207)). We

therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for 

further proceedings.

Appeal: 15-6656 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/05/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

We deny Matthews’ motion for appointment of counsel and

for oral argument. We grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Appeal: 15-6656 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/05/2015 Pg: 4 of 4