Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karriem Wali MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Charles William Cannon, Defendant-Appellant; United States Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karriem Wali Muhammad, a/k/a Charles William Cannon, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-06
Citations: 30 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: Nos. 01-8031, 01-8048
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karriem Wali MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Charles William Cannon, Defendant-Appellant. United States Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karriem Wali Muhammad, a/k/a Charles William Cannon, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karriem Wali MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Charles William Cannon, Defendant-Appellant. United States Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karriem Wali Muhammad, a/k/a Charles William Cannon, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 01-8031, 01-8048.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2002.
Decided March 6, 2002.
Karriem Wali Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Karriem W. Muhammad appeals the district court's orders denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motions, which the court properly construed as motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). See United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550, 551-52 (5th Cir.1998). Because this court has not granted Muhammad authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp.2001), the district court properly dismissed his Rule 60(b) motions as successive § 2255 motions. See Rich, 141 F.3d at 553. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss these appeals. 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.
DISMISSED.