United States of America v. Carl Harrison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7238
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARL HARRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CR-97-143, CA-00-792)
Submitted: October 9, 2002 Decided: February 3, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Carl Harrison appeals the district court’s order denying his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of a previous
order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because Harrison only
raises claims that are identical to those raised in his first
habeas petition or that could have been raised in that petition,
Harrison’s Rule 60(b) motion was actually a successive habeas
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As the district court stated in
denying Harrison’s motion, Harrison failed to comply with the
statutory procedures governing successive petitions. See United
States v. Harrison, Criminal No: 2:97-00143-04 (S.D. W.Va. July 24,
2002). We agree. Harrison is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability from this determination because he cannot make “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473
(2000). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --