Opinion
21-6007 21-6051
09-14-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY D. ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY D. ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Gregory D. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 9, 2021
Appeals 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; 3:17-cv-00236-MOC)
Gregory D. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Gregory D. Anderson appeals the district court's orders construing his postjudgment motion to withdraw his guilty plea and his motion seeking relief from the court's prior order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and denying them on that basis.[*] Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Anderson's motions as successive § 2255 motions 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 deny Anderson's motions to remove restitution and to appoint counsel and affirm the district court's orders.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Anderson's notices of appeal and informal briefs 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 [*] 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). Therefore, we deny Anderson's motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary.