Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07440/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07440-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Josand Farmer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7440

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOSAND FARMER, a/k/a Johan Farmer, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00271-FL-3; 5:12-cv-00725-FL) 

Submitted: January 27, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016

Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Josand Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer E. Wells, Seth Morgan 

Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-7440 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM: 

Josand Farmer appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion1 and denying his motions to take 

judicial notice of adjudicative facts. 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Farmer’s Rule 

60(b) 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. 2015); see also

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531–33 (2005) (explaining how 

to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized 

successive habeas motion). Farmer is therefore not required to 

obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district 

court’s dismissal. See McRae, 793 F.3d at 400. In the absence 

of prefiling authorization from this court, however, the 

district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Farmer’s successive 

§ 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012); United 

States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003). 

 1 Farmer filed a self-styled motion to dismiss indictment 

and void judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), 

(6) that the district court construed as a Rule 60(b) motion and 

denied as without merit and as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion. We treat the district court’s denial of this 

motion as a dismissal because that court could not properly rule 

on the merits of Farmer’s successive claims. 

Appeal: 15-7440 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

Additionally, we construe Farmer’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. In order to obtain 

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner 

must assert claims based on either: 

(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and 

viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, 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). Farmer’s claims do not satisfy either of 

these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion. 

With respect to the district court’s denial of Farmer’s 

motions to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts, we have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

United States v. Farmer, No. 5:10-cr-00271-FL-3 (E.D.N.C. 

Aug. 31, 2015).2 

We thus affirm the district court’s order. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

 2 We also reject as without merit Farmer’s appellate 

challenge to the district court’s failure to recuse itself. 

See United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003). 

Appeal: 15-7440 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-7440 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 4 of 4