Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roshon E. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-22
Citations: 404 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 08-35891
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roshon E. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 186–187

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roshon E. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-35891.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
Filed Nov. 22, 2010.
Joseph Hilary Harrington, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roshon E. Thomas, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Roshon E. Thomas appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) motion for relief from final judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Thomas contends the district court erred by denying his Rule 60(b) motion, which alleged that the district court failed to address six of the claims raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court properly concluded that Thomas' motion was, in effect, an unauthorized second or successive motion under § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 & n. 4, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005).
To the extent that Thomas' contentions may be construed as a request for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, see Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1275 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam), such a request is denied because Thomas has not made the requisite showing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
Thomas' request to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
Thomas' motion to expedite is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.