Craig L. Scott v. CHARLES WILLIAMS, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7447
CRAIG L. SCOTT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES WILLIAMS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00133-GMG-JES)
Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig Lamont Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Craig L. Scott, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
petition, and a subsequent order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motion as an unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion,
and dismissing it on that basis. We conclude that the district
court properly denied relief on Scott’s § 2241 petition and
dismissed his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court and grant Scott’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. See Scott v. Williams, No. 3:14-cv-
00133-GMG-JES (N.D.W. Va. June 17, 2015; Sept. 3, 2015); United
States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that
a certificate of appealability is unnecessary where a district
court dismisses a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized
successive habeas motion).
Additionally, we construe Scott’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
either:

-- 2 of 3 --

3
(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Scott’s claims do not satisfy either of
these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion. 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.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --