USCA4 Appeal: 23-6227 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/21/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6227

YO, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ALISON LAND, Commissioner, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00453-MHL-MRC)

Submitted: November 28, 2023 Decided: February 21, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yo, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6227 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Yo 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. § 2254 petition and dismissing it on that basis. ∗ Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Yo’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2254 petition over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); 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), abrogated in part on other grounds by McRae, 793 F.3d at 400 & n.7, we construe Yo’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Yo’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 the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive habeas petition. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).