United States of America v. Antwan Lamar Jackson, a/k/a Twan, a/k/a Mey-Mey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6905
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTWAN LAMAR JACKSON, a/k/a Twan, a/k/a Mey-Mey,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00033-NKM-1; 3:16-
cv-81113-NKM-RSB)
Submitted: February 27, 2025 Decided: March 4, 2025
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antwan Lamar Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Antwan Lamar Jackson 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 dismissing it on that basis.* Our review of the record confirms that the district
court properly construed Jackson’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 Jackson’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application
to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Jackson’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
* 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 --