Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06096/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06096-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricky Vincent Pendleton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7831

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-6096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, 

at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:96-cr-00001-JPB-JPM-1; 3:19-cv00170-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 21, 2020

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6096 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/21/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Vincent Pendleton, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy David Helman, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6096 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/21/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Pendleton appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motions for relief from judgment as unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2018) motions and dismissing them on that basis.

*

 Our review of the record confirms that 

the district court properly construed Pendleton’s Rule 60(b) motions as successive § 2255

motions 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 orders. 

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th 

Cir. 2003), we construe Pendleton’s notices of appeal and informal briefs as an application 

to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Pendleton’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: 20-6096 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/21/2020 Pg: 3 of 3