Court Opinion

ID: 9365135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:33.046808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.533307
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6802      Doc: 12         Filed: 01/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6802

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DWIGHT LAMAR SPEARS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Spartanburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00112-JMC-3; 7:12-cv-03022-
        JMC)

        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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dwight Lamar Spears, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6802        Doc: 12        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

                 Dwight Lamar Spears 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 denying it on that basis. ∗ Our review of the record confirms that the district

        court properly construed Spears’ 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 Spears’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file

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