Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, a/k/a Eddie Makdessi v. BRYAN WATSON, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7824
ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI, a/k/a Eddie Makdessi,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN WATSON, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00214-MHL)
Submitted: May 20, 2021 Decided: May 25, 2021
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b), (d) 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 Makdessi’s 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 Makdessi’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application
to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Makdessi’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. Finally, we deny Makdessi’s motion for
the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing.
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 motion as an unauthorized, successive habeas
petition. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

-- 2 of 2 --