Opinion
No. 20-7116
03-26-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY D. ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Gregory D. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cr-00260-MOC-DSC-1) Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory D. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Gregory D. Anderson appeals the district court's order construing his postjudgment motion as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying it on that basis. Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Anderson's motion as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order.
A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court's jurisdictional categorization of a motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). --------
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Anderson's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Anderson's claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
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.
AFFIRMED