United States of America v. TONY B. ALEXANDER, a/k/a Sealed Dft 1

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7832

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TONY B. ALEXANDER, a/k/a Sealed Dft #1,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:95-cr-00178-MOC-1; 3:18-cv -00114-
MOC)

Submitted: April 20, 2020 Decided: May 18, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony B. Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Tony B. Alexander seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion.
*
The orders
are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018).
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Alexander has not
made the requisite showing. 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

*
Because the claims Alexander raised in his Rule 60 motion challenged the validity
of his revocation judgment, the motion should have been construed as successive § 2255
motion. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-40 (4th Cir. 2015). In the absence
of prefiling authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider
a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h) (2018).