Anthony Maurice Smalls v. Acting Warden Jeff Nines; State of Maryland

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6180
ANTHONY MAURICE SMALLS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ACTING WARDEN JEFF NINES; STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01884-CCB)
Submitted: April 14, 2022 Decided: April 19, 2022
Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Maurice Smalls, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Maurice Smalls seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying on the
merits his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for relief from its prior order dismissing as
successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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, 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 petition 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 Smalls has not made
the requisite showing. In his Rule 60(b) motions, Smalls challenged the validity of his
state convictions and the merits of the district court’s determination that his prior petition
had to be dismissed as successive. Accordingly, the motions should have been construed
as a successive § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005);
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 Smalls’

-- 2 of 3 --

3
successive § 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). 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

-- 3 of 3 --