USCA4 Appeal: 24-6509 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6509

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRAVANTI ROBERTS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Robert Bryan Harwell, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00370-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02764- TLW)

Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travanti Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6509 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Travanti Roberts appeals the district court’s order construing his original and

amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for relief from judgment as unauthorized,

successive

motions, and denying them for lack of jurisdiction. ∗ Our

review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Roberts’ Rule 60(b)

motions as successive § 2255 motions over which it lacked jurisdiction because Roberts

failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See

(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,

(4th

Cir. 2003), abrogated in part on other grounds by McRae, 793 F.3d at 397, we construe

Roberts’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

§ 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Roberts’ claims do not meet the relevant

standard. See

(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,

(4th Cir. 2015).

2