USCA4 Appeal: 22-6620 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6620

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONDALL CLYDE MIXSON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:08-cr-00043-MFU-1; 7:22-cv- 81500-MFU-PMS)

Submitted: August 23, 2022 Decided: August 26, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rondall Clyde Mixson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6620 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Rondall Clyde Mixson 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 on that basis. * Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Mixson’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 Mixson’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Mixson’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 Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).