United States of America v. Ricky Vincent Pendleton

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7831

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-6096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:96-cr-00001-JPB-JPM-1; 3:19-cv-
00170-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 21, 2020

2

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Vincent Pendleton, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy David Helman, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

PER CURIAM:
Ricky Pendleton ap peals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motions for relief from judgment as unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2018) motions and dismissing them on that basis.
*
Our review of the record confirms that
the district court properly construed Pendleton’s Rule 60(b) motions as successive § 2255
motions 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) (2018); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-
400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th
Cir. 2003), we construe Pendleton’s notices of appeal and informal briefs as an application
to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Pendleton’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).