United States of America v. Michael Kenny Carter, a/k/a Blaze

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6860
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL KENNY CARTER, a/k/a Blaze,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00351-JFA-1)
Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated in part and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Kenny Carter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Kenny Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Motion
for Void Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).* We have reviewed the record on
appeal and conclude that Carter’s Rule 60(b) motion was actually a second or successive
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion because he sought to collaterally attack his conviction and the
district court previously adjudicated his first § 2255 motion on the merits. Carter did not
obtain authorization from this court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, and, thus,
the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Carter’s motion. United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by United States
v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2015). As a result, we “vacate the [portion of the] order
denying [Carter’s Motion for Void Judgment] and remand to the district court with
instructions to dismiss the motion.” Id. at 208.
Next, consistent with our decision in Winestock, we construe Carter’s notice of
appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.
Upon review, we conclude that Carter’s claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h).
Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the district court’s order denying the Motion
for Void Judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss that motion for lack of
* The district court’s order also denied two other postconviction motions, but Carter
forfeited appellate review of the denial of those motions by failing to challenge that aspect
of the district court’s order on appeal. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey,
775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
jurisdiction, and we deny authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See
McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-400. 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.
VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED
WITH INSTRUCTIONS

-- 3 of 3 --