United States of America v. Charles Pyne

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6299
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES PYNE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:04-cr-00018-DKC-3)
Submitted: May 25, 2021 Decided: May 28, 2021
Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Pyne, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Charles Pyne 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 order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order 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, 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 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 Pyne has not made
the requisite showing. In his Rule 60(b) motion, the claim Pyne raised challenged the
validity of his convictions, and, thus, the motion should have been construed as a
successive § 2255 motion. 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 Pyne’s successive § 2255
motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h). 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 --