USCA4 Appeal: 24-6908 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6908

EMMANUEL KING SHAW, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BYRON WATSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00876-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 29, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel King Shaw, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6908 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Emmanuel King Shaw 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 for lack of jurisdiction. * Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Shaw’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 deny Shaw’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 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 Shaw’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Shaw’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 § 2254 petition. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).