Court Opinion

ID: 9365121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:22.313676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.489633
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7286      Doc: 7         Filed: 01/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7286

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        SWAIN CLARKE, a/k/a Swain Clark,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00503-JKB-1; 1:19-cv-00815-JKB)

        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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Swain Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7286         Doc: 7     Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Swain Clarke 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 without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. ∗ Our review of the record

        confirms that the district court properly construed Clarke’s 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 Clarke’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application

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

        claim does 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