United States of America v. Joseph Michael Guarascio

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7079
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH MICHAEL GUARASCIO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:09-cr-00109-D-1; 7:11-cv-00044-D)
Submitted: December 17, 2020 Decided: December 22, 2020
Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Michael Guarascio, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Michael Guarascio appeals the district court’s order construing his motion
for relief from judgment, filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), (d)(3), 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
Guarascio’s Rule 60 motion as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction
because Guarascio 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 Guarascio’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application
to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Guarascio’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 --