United States v. Williamson

Summary

The Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability (COA) in this habeas case, holding that the district court properly rejected the petitioner's Rule 60(b)(4) motion because he received due process during his § 2255 proceedings and could not use Rule 60(b) to raise arguments that should have been brought on direct appeal. The court also held that the petitioner's challenge to the district judge's appointment was procedurally barred as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 claim. Key topics include COA standards under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the distinction between true Rule 60(b) motions and successive habeas petitions, and the procedural bar on raising new substantive claims via Rule 60(b)(4).

Holdings

1. The district court's conclusions are not reasonably debatable; Williamson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The district court properly considered and rejected his due process claims, and Rule 60(b)(4) cannot be used to raise arguments that should have been raised on direct appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in denying Williamson's Rule 60(b)(4) motion for relief from judgment on his § 2255 motion.
2. Whether the district court erred in denying Williamson's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his Rule 60(b)(4) motion.
3. Whether Williamson is entitled to a certificate of appealability to challenge these denials.
4. Whether Williamson is entitled to records relating to the appointment of the district judge who presided over his trial.

Disposition

dismissed