United States of America v. Joseph James Cain Benson, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Boston

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7106
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH JAMES CAIN BENSON, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Boston,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 24-6240
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH JAMES CAIN BENSON, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Boston,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (4:17-cr-00045-RAJ-RJK-
1; 4:21-cv-00089-RAJ)
Submitted: April 30, 2024 Decided: June 18, 2024

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
No. 22-7106, dismissed; No. 24-6240, vacated and remanded with instructions by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph James Cain Benson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Joseph James Cain Benson seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b) motion. The order denying relief on Benson’s § 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 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 Benson has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, in No. 22-7106, we deny Benson’s motions for
abeyance and for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the district court’s
order denying relief on his § 2255 motion.
In No. 24-6240, the district court properly determined that the claims raised in the
Rule 60(b) motion did not challenge a defect in the proceeding, “but in effect ask[ed] for a
second chance to have the merits determined favorably.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S.
524, 532 n.5 (2005). Therefore, Benson’s motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion, but a

-- 3 of 4 --

4
successive § 2255 motion. See id. at 531-32; see also United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d
392, 397-99 (4th Cir. 2015). Absent prefiling authorization from this court, the district
court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Benson’s successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying
Benson’s Rule 60(b) motion and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. * See Bixby v. Stirling, 90 F.4th 140, 155 (4th Cir. 2024) (holding, when
Rule 60(b) movant seeks “permission to raise new and revised claims in a second or
successive” habeas motion, district court should “dismiss[]—not den[y]—the 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.
No. 22-7106, DISMISSED;
No. 24-6240, VACATED AND REMANDED
WITH INSTRUCTIONS
* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s order
denying a Rule 60(b) motion that is in substance a successive § 2255 motion. See McRae,
793 F.3d at 400.

-- 4 of 4 --