United States of America v. Raoul Lafond, a/k/a Fletcher Busbee, a/k/a Chris Lafond, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Jamaican…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6743
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAOUL LAFOND, a/k/a Fletcher Busbee, a/k/a Chris Lafond, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a
Jamaican Jim, a/k/a Derrick Burch, a/k/a Ronald Elie, a/k/a Ronald Ely,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (6:96-cr-00212-CCE-1; 1:25-cv-
00275-CCE-JEP)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Raoul Lafond appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and construing Lafond’s 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
Lafond’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction
because Lafond 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 Lafond’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.
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 --