Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06619/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06619-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan Morrison Norris
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6619

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN MORRISON NORRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00242-TDS-1; 1:24-cv00341-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Morrison Norris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6619 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Morrison Norris appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion 

for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and 

dismissing it on that basis.∗

 Our review of the record confirms that the district court 

properly construed Norris’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); 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 Norris’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application 

to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Norris’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 Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 

motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6619 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2