Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07777/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07777-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stacy Demoris Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7777

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

STACY DEMORIS JOHNSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00332-WO-5; 1:16-cv-01199-

WO-LPA)

Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 22, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacy Demoris Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Childs, 

Sandra Jane Hairston, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett 

Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7777 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Stacy Demoris Johnson appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, construing 

Johnson’s 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 as a successive § 2255 motion, and 

dismissing it on that basis. We have reviewed the record and 

conclude that the district court correctly determined that 

Johnson’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)” motion, but in 

substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. 

McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-400 (4th Cir. 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 

Johnson is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability 

to appeal the district court’s order. See Mcrae, 793 F.3d at 

400. The district court also correctly concluded that in the 

absence of prefiling authorization, it lacked jurisdiction to 

hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) 

(2012). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 16-7777 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-7777 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 3 of 3