794 Fed.Appx. 347 (4th Cir. 2020), 19-7269, United States v. Samuel

Docket Nº:19-7269
Citation:794 Fed.Appx. 347
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryan Christopher SAMUEL, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Bryan Christopher Samuel, Appellant Pro Se.
Judge Panel:Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Case Date:February 24, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 347

794 Fed.Appx. 347 (4th Cir. 2020)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Bryan Christopher SAMUEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-7269

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

February 24, 2020

Submitted: February 20, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00351-TSE-1; 1:17-cv-01432-TSE)

Bryan Christopher Samuel, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bryan Christopher Samuel appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion and denying it on that basis.[*] Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Samuel’s Rule 60(b) 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) (2018); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-400. Accordingly, we 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 Samuel’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Samuel’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

---------

Notes:

[*] 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).

---------

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP