USCA4 Appeal: 24-6619 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6619

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN MORRISON NORRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00242-TDS-1; 1:24-cv- 00341-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Morrison Norris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6619 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Morrison Norris appeals the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion

for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive

motion and

dismissing it on that basis. ∗ Our review of the record confirms that the district court

properly construed Norris’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

(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), we construe Norris’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application

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

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