UNITED STATES v. COPELAND (2020)

Ivan Alexander Copeland appeals the district court's orders dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Banister v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1709-10, 207 L.Ed.2d 58 (2020); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-34, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability as unnecessary and affirm the district court's orders. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Copeland's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Copeland'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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.