Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06503/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06503-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Kevin Lamont Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6503

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEVIN LAMONT WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, 

Chief District Judge. (4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1)

Submitted: August 10, 2015 Decided: September 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Lamont Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6503 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Lamont Walker appeals the district court’s marginal 

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

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record 

and conclude that Walker’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)” 

motion, but in substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United 

States v. McRae, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4190665 at *5-*6 (4th 

Cir. July 13, 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 corpus motion). 

Therefore, we conclude that Walker is not required to obtain a 

certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s 

order. See Mcrae, 2015 WL 4190665, at *5-*6. However, in the 

absence of prefiling authorization, the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3) (2012). 

Accordingly, we deny Walker’s motion to expedite the appeal 

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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-6503 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/28/2015 Pg: 2 of 2