United States v. Raoul Lafond

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6743 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAOUL LAFOND, a/k/a Fletcher Busbee, a/k/a Chris Lafond, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Jamaican Jim, a/k/a Derrick Burch, a/k/a Ronald Elie, a/k/a Ronald Ely, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (6:96-cr-00212-CCE-1; 1:25-cv- 00275-CCE-JEP)

Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 3, 2026

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6743 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Raoul Lafond appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing Lafond’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it on that basis. * Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Lafond’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because Lafond 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.

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Lafond’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that his 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. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).