United States of America v. Eric Mario Byers

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6156
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC MARIO BYERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-6238
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC MARIO BYERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:02-cr-00077-RBS-1; 2:23-cv-
00078-RBS)
Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 28, 2023

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Mario Byers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Eric Mario Byers appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for early
termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), denying his second 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized, and declining to consider Byers’
motion declaring supervised release unconstitutional. We affirm in part and dismiss in
part.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering Byers’
offense conduct in denying his motion for early termination of supervised release. We thus
affirm that part of the court’s order. Byers’ appeal from the court’s order denying his
second § 2255 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, as here, 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 Byers has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss that part
of the appeal.
Byers’ motion challenging the constitutionality of supervised release should have
been construed as another challenge to the legality of Byers’ sentence and brought under
§ 2255. Because Byers did not receive authorization from this court to file a second or

-- 3 of 4 --

4
successive § 2255 motion, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider it. We
thus deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this part of the appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss in
part. We deny Byers’ motion and supplemental motion for a limited remand to consider
his constitutional challenge to supervised release. 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 IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 4 of 4 --