UNITED STATES v. PLUNKETT (2021)

Anthoine Plunkett appeals the district court's orders construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d) motion as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it on that basis, denying his request for recusal, denying his motion for extension of time to file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, and denying his motions for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b). Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Plunkett's Rule 60(d) motion as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because Plunkett failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-400 (4th Cir. 2015). Confining our review to the issues raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we conclude that Plunkett has forfeited appellate review of the remainder of the district court's orders. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”); Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int'l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to develop its argument—even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, although we grant Plunkett's motion to supplement his appeal, we affirm the district court's orders.

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), abrogated in part on other grounds by McRae, 793 F.3d at 400 & n.7, we construe Plunkett's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Plunkett'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 on the claims raised in this appeal.

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.