UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7097
ADAM PELLETIER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:21-cv-00374-MFU-JCH)
Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 22, 2021
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adam Pelletier, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adam Pelletier 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. § 2254 petition
and dismissing it on that basis. * Our review of the record confirms that the district court
properly construed Pelletier’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2254 petition over which
it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); 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 Pelletier’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application
to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Pelletier’s
claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). We therefore deny
authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.
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 habeas
petition. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
2