Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymon Anthony HIGGS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-21
Citations: 691 F. App'x 769
Docket Number: No. 17-6288
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymon Anthony HIGGS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 769–769

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymon Anthony HIGGS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6288
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 12, 2017
Decided: June 21, 2017
Raymon Anthony Higgs, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymon Anthony Higgs seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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)(B) (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).
Higgs previously filed a § 2255 motion that was adjudicated on the merits. See Higgs v. United States, Nos. 3:04-cr-00867-CMC; 3:06-cv-01829-CMC (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 2007) (unpublished). Thus, Higgs' current § 2255 motion is successive. Higgs has not obtained authorization from this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2012), to file a successive § 2255 motion. In the absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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