Court Opinion

ID: 9365124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:24.310527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.500829
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7209      Doc: 7        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7209

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ROBERT LEE WINFIELD, JR., a/k/a Tubbs,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (2:95-cr-00193-REP-1; 2:07-cv-00529-
        REP)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7209         Doc: 7      Filed: 01/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., 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.

        § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. * Our review of the record confirms

        that the district court properly construed Winfield’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive

        § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling

        authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); 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), we construe Winfield’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to

        file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Winfield’s

        claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore 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

               *
                 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 § 2255
        motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

                                                     2