USCA4 Appeal: 23-6989 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6989

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SIGMUND DIAOLA JAMES, a/k/a Sig, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00944-CMC-1)

Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 23, 2024

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sigmund Diaola James, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6989 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Sigmund Diaola James appeals the district court’s order construing his pro se motions under the First Step Act and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 as unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and dismissing them for lack of jurisdiction. * Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed James’ motions as successive § 2255 motions over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); United States v. Ferguson, 55 F.4th 262, 270-72 (4th Cir. 2022); 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 James’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that James’ 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 motion as an unauthorized, successive habeas petition.

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