Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilson HILL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-7072

Decided: April 27, 2021

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Wilson Hill, Appellant Pro Se.

Wilson Hill 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 denying it for lack of jurisdiction.* Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Hill's 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. However, we modify the order, United States v. Hill, No. 4:14-cr-00003-AWA-LRL-1 (E.D. Va. filed June 18, 2020 & entered June 19, 2020), to reflect that Hill's motion was denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and affirm as modified, 28 U.S.C. § 2106.

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



FOOTNOTE.   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).


Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Copied to clipboard