Case ID: f-appx_2/html/0339-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Savino BRAXTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-7635.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 24, 2001.
    Savino Braxton, pro se. James G. Warwick, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Savino Braxton appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his motion for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Moreover, Braxton’s motion to amend is tantamount to a successive § 2255 motion, for which Braxton must obtain authorization from this court to file. See United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550, 551-53 (5th Cir.1998) (holding that motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), properly construed as successive § 2255 motion), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1011, 119 S.Ct. 1156, 143 L.Ed.2d 221 (1999). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Braxton, No. CR-90-135-K (D.Md. Oct. 30, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.