United States v. Braxton ( 2001 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7635
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAVINO BRAXTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge;
Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-135-K)
Submitted: January 11, 2001 Decided: January 24, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Savino Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Savino Braxton appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion to amend his motion for habeas corpus relief under 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion.
Moreover, Braxton’s motion to amend is tantamount to a successive
§ 2255 motion, for which Braxton must obtain authorization from
this court to file. See United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550, 551-
53 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b), properly construed as successive § 2255 motion), cert. de-
nied, 526 U.S. 1011 (1999). Accordingly, we affirm on the reason-
ing of the district court. United States v. Braxton, No. CR-90-
135-K (D. Md. Oct. 30, 2000). We dispense with oral argument be-
cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2