USCA4 Appeal: 23-6256 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6256

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMAR MARVIN SIMMONS, a/k/a Mar, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00061-GLR-1; 1:14-cv-03911-GLR)

Submitted: July 20, 2023 Decided: July 25, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamar Marvin Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6256 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Jamar Marvin Simmons 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 for lack of jurisdiction. * Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Simmons’ 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 Simmons’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Simmons’ 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).