Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cleveland NELSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-28
Citations: 97 F. App'x 450
Docket Number: No. 03-7624
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cleveland NELSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 450–451

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cleveland NELSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7624.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2004.
Decided: May 28, 2004.
Cleveland Nelson, Appellant pro se.
Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded in part; authorization denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Cleveland Nelson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Because Nelson's motion, styled as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, directly attacked his conviction and sentence rather than any alleged defect in the collateral review process, it amounted to a successive § 2255 motion that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.), cert. denied — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003). We accordingly vacate the order denying the Rule 60(b) motion and remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss the motion.
In accordance with Winestock, we construe Nelson's notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a successive § 2255 motion. See id. at 208. In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a movant must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000). Nelson does not satisfy either of these conditions. Accordingly, we deny Nelson's implicit application for leave to file a second § 2255 motion.
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.
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART; AUTHORIZATION DENIED IN PART