Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07285/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07285-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Herbert Marshall
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7285

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HERBERT MARSHALL, a/k/a Victor King,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00537-JFA-1; 3:18-

cv-01988-JFA)

Submitted: April 23, 2020 Decided: April 28, 2020

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herbert Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7285 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/28/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Herbert Marshall appeals the district court’s order construing a postjudgment 

motion he purported to bring under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 as an unauthorized, successive 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion and dismissing it on that basis.*

 Our review of the record 

confirms that the district court properly construed Marshall’s 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 Marshall’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to 

file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Marshall’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 motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 

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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7285 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/28/2020 Pg: 2 of 2