Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06425/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06425-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Edwards Monroe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6425

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH EDWARDS MONROE, a/k/a Slim,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,

Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00041-NKM-4; 3:13-cv-80801-NKMRSB)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Edwards Monroe, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Spodick Healey, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6425 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Edwards Monroe appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) motion. The district 

court properly characterized this motion as an unauthorized

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissed it for 

lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 

(4th Cir. 2015) (holding that a certificate of appealability is 

unnecessary where a district court dismisses a Rule 60(b) motion 

as an unauthorized successive habeas motion). 

Additionally, we construe Monroe’s 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). Monroe’s claims do not satisfy either of 

these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion.

Appeal: 15-6425 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/19/2015 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.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-6425 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3