United States of America v. Carter Tillery

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6958
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARTER TILLERY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00223-JAG-1; 3:21-cv-
00356-JAG)
Submitted: December 10, 2021 Decided: January 4, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carter Tillery, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Carter Tillery appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion 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
Tillery’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 deny a certificate of appealability as unnecessary, deny the pending
motion, and affirm the district court’s order.* 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 --