Tyrone L. Exum v. Dennis Daniels

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7171
TYRONE L. EXUM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DENNIS DANIELS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02031-BO)
Submitted: May 30, 2024 Decided: June 4, 2024
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone L. Exum, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone L. Exum seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying on the merits his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s prior judgment dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. 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, 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 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 Exum has not made
the requisite showing. In his Rule 60(b) motion, the claim Exum raised challenged the
validity of his convictions, and, thus, the motion 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 Exum’s successive § 2254
petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 --