United States of America v. Jervontez Lavassior Leak, a/k/a G

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6600
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERVONTEZ LAVASSIOR LEAK, a/k/a G,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cr-00232-MOC-DSC-2; 3:18-cv-
00629-MOC)
Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: October 21, 2022
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jervontez Lavassior Leak, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jervontez Lavassior Leak 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.
§ 2255 motion and dismissing it on that basis.* Our review of the record confirms that the
district court properly construed Leak’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion
over which it lacked jurisdiction because he 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 Leak’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file
a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Leak’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 --