Court Opinion

ID: 9837967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:00:31.474669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.668312
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6356      Doc: 5        Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6356

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JUSTIN DEONTA STROM, a/k/a Jae Dee, a/k/a Jae, a/k/a J-Dirt,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00159-LMB-1; 1:23-cv-00342)

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

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Justin Deonta Strom, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6356         Doc: 5       Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

                 Justin Deonta Strom appeals the district court’s order construing his February 26,

        2023, postjudgment filing as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and

        dismissing it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. ∗ Our review of the record confirms

        that the district court properly construed Strom’s filing as a successive § 2255 motion over

        which it lacked jurisdiction because Strom 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. United States v. Strom, No. 1:12-cr-

        00159-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 15, 2023).

                 Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th

        Cir. 2003), we construe Strom’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to

        file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Strom’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 postjudgment filing as an unauthorized, successive § 2255
        motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

                                                     2