United States of America v. Jamar Marvin Simmons, a/k/a Mar

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6256
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMAR MARVIN SIMMONS, a/k/a Mar,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00061-GLR-1; 1:14-cv-03911-GLR)
Submitted: July 20, 2023 Decided: July 25, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamar Marvin Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jamar Marvin Simmons 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 for lack of jurisdiction.* Our review of the record confirms that
the district court properly construed Simmons’ 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 Simmons’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to
file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Simmons’
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 --