UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7269
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRYAN CHRISTOPHER SAMUEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00351-TSE-1; 1:17-cv-01432-
TSE)
Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 24, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryan Christopher Samuel, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bryan Christopher Samuel 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.
§ 2255 (2018) motion and denying it on that basis. * Our review of the record confirms that
the district court properly construed Samuel’s Rule 60(b) 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) (2018); 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 Samuel’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to
file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Samuel’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. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
2