Emmanuel King Shaw v. BYRON WATSON, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6555
EMMANUEL KING SHAW,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BYRON WATSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00876-CMH-IDD)
Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 3, 2026
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmanuel King Shaw, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel King Shaw 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. § 2254
petition and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.* Our review of the record confirms that
the district court properly construed Shaw’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2254
petition over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization
from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); 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 Shaw’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file
a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Shaw’s claims do
not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). We therefore deny
authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.
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 § 2254
petition. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

-- 2 of 2 --