Court Opinion

ID: 9943202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 21:00:34.628868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:36.371818
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6227      Doc: 7        Filed: 02/21/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6227

        YO,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        ALISON LAND, Commissioner,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00453-MHL-MRC)

        Submitted: November 28, 2023                                 Decided: February 21, 2024

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Yo, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6227         Doc: 7      Filed: 02/21/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Yo appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

        relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and

        dismissing it on that basis. ∗ Our review of the record confirms that the district court

        properly construed Yo’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2254 petition over which it

        lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court.

        See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-400. Accordingly, we affirm the

        district court’s order.

               Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208

        (4th Cir. 2003), abrogated in part on other grounds by McRae, 793 F.3d at 400 & n.7, we

        construe Yo’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or

        successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Yo’s claims do not meet the

        relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). We therefore deny authorization to file a

        successive § 2254 petition.

               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

               ∗
                  A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s
        jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive habeas
        petition. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

                                                     2