UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7974
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JACOB A. BOLDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:99-cr-00074-MR-1)
Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 21, 2016
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacob A. Bolden, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jacob A. Bolden seeks to appeal the district court’s order
treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
According, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
Additionally, we construe Bolden’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
either:
(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Bolden seeks relief under Johnson v.
United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). We conclude that Johnson
would entitle Bolden to no relief because Bolden’s prior
conviction for breaking and entering under North Carolina law
constitutes burglary and thus was unaffected by Johnson. 135 S.
Ct. at 2563; see United States v. Mungro, 754 F.3d 267, 272 (4th
2
Cir.); cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 734 (2014); United States v.
Thompson, 588 F.3d 197, 202 (4th Cir. 2009). Therefore, we 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
3