UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON (2021)

Kenneth Ray Johnson appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly concluded that Johnson's motion was not a true Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, but in substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-99 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate true Rule 60(b) motion from unauthorized successive habeas corpus motion). Therefore, we conclude that Johnson is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's order. See McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-99. However, in the absence of prefiling authorization, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.