Court Opinion

ID: 9411509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:01:09.723598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.466770
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6256      Doc: 11         Filed: 07/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6256

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JAMAR MARVIN SIMMONS, a/k/a Mar,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00061-GLR-1; 1:14-cv-03911-GLR)

        Submitted: July 20, 2023                                          Decided: July 25, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jamar Marvin Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6256         Doc: 11      Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jamar Marvin Simmons 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 Simmons’ 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 Simmons’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to

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

        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