UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY D. ANDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-6051
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY D. ANDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cr-00260-MOC-DSC-1; 3:17-cv-
00236-MOC)
Submitted: September 9, 2021 Decided: September 14, 2021
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory D. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Gregory D. Anderson appeals the district court’s orders construing his postjudgment
motion to withdraw his guilty plea and his motion seeking relief from the court’s prior
order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motions and denying them on that basis. * Our review of the record confirms that the district
court properly construed Anderson’s motions as successive § 2255 motions 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 deny
Anderson’s motions to remove restitution and to appoint counsel and affirm the district
court’s orders.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th
Cir. 2003), we construe Anderson’s notices of appeal and informal briefs as an application
to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Anderson’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 motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion.
United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). Therefore, we deny Anderson’s
motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary.
3