UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6820

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. PATRICK SMITH, a/k/a Pee , Defendant

- Appellant

.

No. 22
- 7020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. PATRICK SMITH, a/k/a Pee, Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. ( 1:18

- cr - 00017

- ELH

- 1 ; 1:20

- cv - 02609

- ELH )

Submitted : October 27 , 202 3 Decided: May 14, 2024 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6820 Doc: 23 Filed: 05/14/2024 Pg: 1 of 52 Before RICHARDSON and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

No. 22

- 6820, d ismissed ; No. 22

- 7020, vacated and remanded with instructions by un published per curiam opinion

.
Patrick Smith , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6820 Doc: 23 Filed: 05/14/2024 Pg: 2 of 53 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Patrick Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion and denying his motion for recusal, denying his postjudgment motions to amend his § 2255 motion, and denying on the merits his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s prior order denying his § 2255 motion . The order denying relief on Smith’s § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that re asonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims d ebatable or
wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both t hat the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Smith ’s informal brief s , we conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ( “ The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief. ” )

. Moreover, the claims Smith raised in his postjudgment motions to amend challenged the validity of his conviction , and, thus, the motion s should have been construed USCA4 Appeal: 22-6820 Doc: 23 Filed: 05/14/2024 Pg: 3 of 54 as successive § 2255 motion s
. See Banister v. Davis , 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1704

- 11 (2020). Similarly, Smith’s allegation in his Rule 60(b) motion that an attorney representing him made a mistake in transcribing an affidavit that Smith previously submitted to the court in support of his § 2255 claims did not ch allenge a defect in the proceeding , “but in effect ask[ed] for a second chance to have the merits determined favorably.” Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 532 n.5 (2005). Therefore, Smith’s motion was n ot a true Rule 60(b) motion, but a successive § 2255 motion. See id. at 531

- 32; see also United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 397

- 99 (4th Cir. 2015). Absent prefiling authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Smith’s successive § 2255 motion s
. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h). Smith also challenges the district court judge’s refusal to recuse

. We review a district court judge ’ s recusal decision for abuse of discretion. United States v. Stone , 866 F.3d 219, 229 (4th Cir. 2017). Here, Smith’s asserted grounds for recusal amounted to mere dissatisfaction with the district court’s rulings, which is not a sufficient basis for recusal

. See Belue v. Leventhal , 640 F.3d 567, 572

- 74 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussing valid bases for bias or partiality motion); see also U nited States v. Lentz , 524 F.3d 501, 530 (4th Cir. 2008) (“The presiding judge is not ... required to recuse h [er] self simply because of unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.” (internal quotation marks omitted))

. The district court judge therefore did not abuse her discretion in declining Smith’s request for recusal. Accordingly, in No. 22

- 6820, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Smith’s appeal of the district court’s orders denying relief on his § 2255 motion and USCA4 Appeal: 22-6820 Doc: 23 Filed: 05/14/2024 Pg: 4 of 55 denying his motions to amend . In No. 22

- 7020, we vacate the district court ’ s order denying Smith’s Rule 60(b) motion and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. * See Bixby v. Stirling , 90 F.4th 140 , 155 (4th Cir. 2024) ( holding, whe n Rule 60(b) movant seeks “ permission to raise new and revised claims in a second or successive ” habeas motion , district court should “ dismiss []

— not den [y]

— the 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.
No. 22

- 6820, DISMISSED ; No. 22

- 7020, VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s order denying a Rule 60(b) motion that is in substance a successive § 2255 motion. See McRae , 793 F.3d at 400. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6820 Doc: 23 Filed: 05/14/2024 Pg: 5 of 5