Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Earl FRANCIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-08
Citations: 1 F. App'x 141
Docket Number: No. 00-6491
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Earl FRANCIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 1
Pages: 141–142

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Earl FRANCIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-6491.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 29, 2000.
Decided Jan. 8, 2001.
Patrick Earl Francis, pro se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, VA, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Patrick Earl Francis appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motions. Because Francis' Rule 60(b) motion was tantamount to a successive § 2255 application, we conclude the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it absent authorization from this Court. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(b) (West Supp.2000); United States v. Rich, 141 F.Bd 550, 551 (5th Cir.1998), cert, denied, 526 U.S. 1011, 119 S.Ct. 1156, 143 L.Ed.2d 221 (1999). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the claims raised solely in that motion. As to claims raised in the original § 2255 motion and supplements submitted prior to the district court's dismissal of the original motion, we find no reversible error. Therefore, we deny a certificate of appeal-ability and dismiss those claims on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Francis, Nos. CR-94-106; CA-99^20-7 (W.D.Va. Feb. 18, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.