Opinion
20-7848
07-22-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH THOMAS SMITH, a/k/a Joseph Smith, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph Thomas Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 20, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00199-HEH-1; 3:20-cv-00836-HEH)
Joseph Thomas Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Thomas Smith appeals the district court's order construing his "Motion for Administrative Review" as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Smith's filing as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because Smith 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, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we grant Smith's motion to seal his informal brief and affirm the district court's order.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Smith's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Smith'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.