United States of America v. Jonathan Morrison Norris

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6619
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN MORRISON NORRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00242-TDS-1; 1:24-cv-
00341-TDS-LPA)
Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024
Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Morrison Norris, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Morrison Norris appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Norris’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 Norris’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application
to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Norris’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 --