USCA4 Appeal: 25-6469 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6469

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NIGEL CLARKE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:02-cr-00060-FL-5)

Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 3, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nigel Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6469 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Nigel Clarke appeals the district court’s order construing his motion for leave to file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. ∗ Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Clarke’s motion as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-400.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Clarke, No. 4:02-cr- 00060-FL-5 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2025).

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Clarke’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Clarke’s 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 Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion. See Bixby v. Stirling, 90 F.4th 140, 156-57 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 224 (2024); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).