Opinion
No. 20-6552
10-02-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANGELO IRVING, Defendant - Appellant.
Angelo Marcellus Irving, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:01-cr-00304-REP-1, 3:20-cv-00158-REP) Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angelo Marcellus Irving, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Angelo Marcellus Irving appeals the district court's order construing his filings as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment and an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing them on that basis. Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Irving's filings 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); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-400 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 Rule 60(b) 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 Irving's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Irving'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