Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07321/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07321-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7321

TUNZY A. SANDERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-01819-HMH)

Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 21, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tunzy A. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7321 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/21/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Tunzy A. Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying on the merits 

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for relief from the court’s prior judgment denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. 

See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sanders has not made 

the requisite showing. In his Rule 60(b) motions, Sanders challenged the substance of the 

district court’s resolution of his claims attacking his convictions. Therefore, the motions

should have been construed as successive § 2254 petitions. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 

U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-99 (4th Cir. 2015). 

Absent prefiling authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to 

entertain Sanders’ successive § 2254 petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2018). 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7321 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/21/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7321 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/21/2020 Pg: 3 of 3