Court Opinion

ID: 9837997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:01:14.706717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.745478
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6455      Doc: 6        Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6455

        DELVIN JAMES WILSON,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE, D.O.C. Director,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00657-JAG-MRC)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Delvin James Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6455         Doc: 6         Filed: 09/01/2023   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Delvin James Wilson 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 denying it on that basis. * Our review of the record confirms that the district

        court properly construed Wilson’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), we construe Wilson’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to

        file a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Wilson’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