Torres v. United States, 833 F.3d 164

George Torres, pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his federal conspiracy-to-murder conviction; the District Court denied the § 2255 motion.
Torres then filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d) motion alleging the Government committed fraud on the court, seeking to set aside the denial of his § 2255 motion.
The District Court denied Torres’s Rule 60(d) motion and refused to issue a certificate of appealability (COA).
Torres appealed the denial of the Rule 60(d) motion and moved in the Second Circuit for a COA to permit that appeal.
The central legal question was whether the COA requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) applies to appeals from denials of Rule 60(d) motions where the underlying order denied § 2255 relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a COA is required to appeal denial of a Rule 60(d) motion after denial of a § 2255 motion	Torres argued he should be allowed to appeal the Rule 60(d) denial without a COA	The government and precedent suggest COA requirement applies to final orders in § 2255 proceedings, including Rule 60(d) denials	A COA is required to appeal a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(d) motion in a § 2255 proceeding
Whether Torres demonstrated entitlement to a COA on his Rule 60(d) fraud-on-the-court claim	Torres argued jurists of reason could debate both the Rule 60(d) denial and the underlying § 2255 claim given the alleged fraud	The record did not show that reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s denial or that underlying § 2255 claim states a constitutional violation	Torres failed to make the requisite showing; COA denied and appeal dismissed

Kellogg v. Strack, 269 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2001) (COA requirement applies to appeals from denials of Rule 60(b) motions in habeas proceedings)
Jackson v. Albany Appeal Bureau Unit, 442 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2006) (§ 2254 and § 2255 petitions are generally in pari materia; reasoning in one context applies to the other)