Court Opinion

ID: 9943719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-24 21:00:46.107427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:54.240660
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6690      Doc: 8         Filed: 02/23/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6690

        MARKESE D. RICE,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        KENNETH DIGGS,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:23-cv-00355-MR)

        Submitted: December 29, 2023                                  Decided: February 23, 2024

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Markese D. Rice, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6690         Doc: 8         Filed: 02/23/2024    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Markese D. Rice 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 dismissing it on that basis. * Our review of the record confirms that the district

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

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