United States v. Alton Benn

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6369 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6369 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALTON BENN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00127-TDS-2; 1:23-cv- 00765-TDS-LPA) Submitted: February 27, 2025 Decided: March 3, 2025 Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alton Benn, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6369 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Alton Benn appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing Benn’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 Benn’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because Benn failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-400 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we deny as unnecessary Benn’s motion for a certificate of appealability, * and 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 Benn’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that his claim does 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. McRae, 793 F.3d at 400. 2