Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George WILSON, III, Defendant-Appellant: United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Wilson, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-26
Citations: 219 F. App'x 302
Docket Number: Nos. 06-7910, 06-8007
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George WILSON, III, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Wilson, III, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 219
Pages: 302–303

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George WILSON, III, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Wilson, III, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 06-7910, 06-8007.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 15, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2007.
George Wilson, III, Appellant Pro Se. John Thomas Martin, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, George Wilson III seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his motion as one filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying relief because he did not have authorization from this court under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). He also appeals two margin orders denying his motions for reconsideration. Wilson was clearly attacking his sentence and because he had previously filed a § 2255 motion, the district court correctly found it was without authority to consider these filings unless Wilson had authorization from this court. See § 2244.
In addition, Wilson appeals the district court's orders denying his request for records and files and denying two motions for reconsideration. Because there was no reason to grant the relief sought, we affirm.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. 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.
To the extent Wilson may be seeking authorization from this court to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, we deny the request.