Opinion ID: 2824572
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harbison

Text: The Supreme Court has interpreted section 2253(c)(1)(A), the analogous COA provision regarding appeal of section 2254 habeas petitions, as “govern[ing] final orders that dispose of the merits of a habeas corpus proceeding—a proceeding challenging the lawfulness of the petitioner’s detention.” Harbison, 556 U.S. at 183. Given that section 2255 “was intended to mirror § 2254 in operative effect,” and that the language used in sections 2253(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(B) is functionally identical, we may apply Harbison’s reasoning to Winkles’s section 2255 motion. See Jones, 733 F.3d at 830 n.1 (quoting Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 353 (1994)). UNITED STATES V. WINKLES 15 The Court ruled in Harbison that a COA is not required to appeal the denial of a motion to enlarge federally appointed counsel’s authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3599. 556 U.S. at 182–83. The case involved attorneys appointed by a federal district court to represent a petitioner seeking federal habeas relief. After the habeas petition was denied, the attorneys moved the district court to expand their representation to include state clemency proceedings. Id. The motion was denied as seeking relief beyond the scope of section 3599. Id. Winkles asks us to take a substantial step beyond Harbison and conclude that the COA requirement does not apply to an appeal of a “legitimate” Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment following the denial of a section 2255 motion. The Supreme Court held in Gonzalez that a “legitimate” Rule 60(b) motion in the habeas context is one that “attacks ‘some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings.’” United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532). This is in contrast to a Rule 60(b) motion that advances a “claim,” i.e. “an asserted federal basis for relief from a state court’s judgment of conviction.” Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 530. The latter type of Rule 60(b) motion is treated as a second or successive habeas petition, and it must meet the stringent requirements for the filing of second or successive petitions. Id. Although Gonzalez was limited to section 2254 actions, we apply the case’s holding to section 2255 motions as well. United States v. Buenrostro, 638 F.3d 720, 722 (9th Cir.