Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dominique Alexander JONES, a/k/a Big Nique, a/k/a Nique, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-27
Citations: 687 F. App'x 240
Docket Number: No. 16-7616
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dominique Alexander JONES, a/k/a Big Nique, a/k/a Nique, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 687
Pages: 240–241

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dominique Alexander JONES, a/k/a Big Nique, a/k/a Nique, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7616
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2017
Decided: April 27, 2017
Dominique Alexander Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dominique Alexander Jones appeals the district court's order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Our review of the record confirms that Jones sought successive § 2255 relief without authorization from this court, and we therefore hold that the district court properly dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h) (2012). Thus, we affirm the district court's order. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
We construe Jones' notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense, or a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(l)-(2). Jones' claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we 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