United States of America v. Joseph Thomas Smith, a/k/a Joseph Smith

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7848
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH THOMAS SMITH, a/k/a Joseph Smith,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00199-HEH-1; 3:20-cv-
00836-HEH)
Submitted: July 20, 2021 Decided: July 22, 2021
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Thomas Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Thomas Smith appeals the district court’s order construing his “Motion for
Administrative Review” as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and
dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. Our review of the record confirms that the district
court properly construed Smith’s filing as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked
jurisdiction because Smith 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, 400 (4th Cir.
2015). Accordingly, we grant Smith’s motion to seal his informal brief and 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 Smith’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file
a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Smith’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

-- 2 of 2 --