United States of America v. Marc Pierre Hall, a/k/a Marc Valeriano, a/k/a Fella

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7350
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARC PIERRE HALL, a/k/a Marc Valeriano, a/k/a Fella,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:95-cr-00005-FDW-1; 3:99-cv-00061-
FDW)
Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 22, 2021
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Pierre Hall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marc Pierre Hall appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(d)(1) 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 Hall’s Rule 60(d)(1) motion as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked
jurisdiction because Hall 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. The dismissal,
however, “must be one without prejudice, because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no
power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.” S. Walk at Broadlands
Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir.
2013). Accordingly, we affirm as modified to reflect that Hall’s motion is dismissed
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Hall’s motion for appointment of
counsel.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003), we construe Hall’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to
file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that his claims do
not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny authorization
to file a successive § 2255 motion.
* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s
jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60 motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255
motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 AS MODIFIED

-- 3 of 3 --