United States of America v. Claude Sloan

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6060
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLAUDE SLOAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big
Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00004-JPJ-1; 2:20-cv-81440-
JPJ)
Submitted: May 19, 2022 Decided: May 24, 2022
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claude Sloan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Claude Sloan 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 motion
and denying it on that basis.*
Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Sloan’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); 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 Sloan’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file
a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Sloan’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 deny Sloan’s motion to appoint counsel. 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 of 2 --