Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Savino BRAXTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-24
Citations: 2 F. App'x 339
Docket Number: No. 00-7635
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Savino BRAXTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 2
Pages: 339–339

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.