UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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’

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