Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07880/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07880-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelvin Andre Spotts
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7880

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, 

Chief District Judge. (3:98-cr-00047-1; 3:00-cv-00647)

Submitted: April 21, 2015 Decided: April 30, 2015

Before GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Andre Spotts, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Loew Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia; Richard 

Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, 

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7880 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Andre Spotts seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying on the merits his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion 

seeking relief from an order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. Because the Rule 60(b) motion directly attacked Spotts’ 

convictions, the district court was without jurisdiction to 

consider the motion, which was, in essence, a successive and 

unauthorized § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 

F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003). 

The district court’s order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

Appeal: 14-7880 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Spotts has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Spotts’ 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:

(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). Spotts’ 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.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7880 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/30/2015 Pg: 3 of 3