Court Opinion

ID: 9893111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 21:00:39.819287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:40.619199
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6832      Doc: 5         Filed: 10/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6832

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JUAN SOTO,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00071-D-2)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 24, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Juan Soto, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6832         Doc: 5        Filed: 10/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

                Juan Soto seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

        motion seeking relief from the district court’s criminal judgment. Soto’s motion was, in

        substance, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court’s denial of relief on this 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

        reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

        debatable 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 that 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)).

                We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Soto has not made

        the requisite showing. In his Rule 60(b) motion, the claim Soto raised challenged the

        validity of one of his convictions, and, thus, the motion should have been construed as a

        successive § 2255 motion. ∗ See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005); United

        States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-99 (4th Cir. 2015). Absent prefiling authorization

                ∗
                    The district court denied relief on Soto’s initial § 2255 motion on the merits in
        2019.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6832         Doc: 5      Filed: 10/24/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Soto’s successive § 2255

        motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h). 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

                                                     3