USCA4 Appeal: 22-6449 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6449

MARCUS LE’SHAWN DIXON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00114-HEH-EWH)

Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Le’Shawn Dixon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6449 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Marcus Le’Shawn Dixon appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s prior judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as successive and unauthorized. As Dixon’s Rule 60(b) motion sought to challenge the court’s order on the merits, it was an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition ∗ and the district court thus correctly denied it as the court lacked jurisdiction because Dixon failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); McRae, 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 Dixon’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Dixon’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 a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion which is in substance an unauthorized, successive habeas petition.

United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).