Mr. Ciocchetti sought a COA to appeal from that dismissal and we denied his request. See United States v. Ciocchetti, 480 F. App'x 912, 915 (10th Cir. 2012). In June 2012, Mr. Ciocchetti filed a second 60(b) motion and the district court again concluded that Mr. Ciocchetti was attempting to file an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion.
Thus, there could be no error in denying an evidentiary hearing unless the district court made an incorrect merits determination. United States v. Ciocchetti, 480 F. App'x 912, 914 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Lindsey, 582 F.3d 1173, 1175-76 (10th Cir. 2009) (per curiam)). The burden "for establishing an entitlement to an evidentiary hearing is relatively light."
there could be no error in denying an evidentiary hearing unless the district court made an incorrect merits determination. It follows that, to argue that the court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion, the prisoner generally has to be attacking the district court's analysis of the merits.Id. at 1176; see also Campbell v. Martin, 564 Fed. App'x 415, 418 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished); United States v. Ciocchetti, 480 Fed. App'x 912, 914 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished). Based on the foregoing, I find that Mr. Rising's motion for reconsideration is merits-focused and is a "claim" as defined in Gonzalez.