United States v. Perry Cousins ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6290
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PERRY COUSINS, a/k/a Pzo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:10-cr-00047-RBS-TEM-
1; 4:16-cv-00060-RBS)
Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 28, 2020
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Perry Cousins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Perry Cousins appeals the district court’s order denying his motion requesting leave
to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and 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 on that basis. Cousins confines his appeal to the district court’s construction
ruling. * Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed
Cousins’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.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003), we construe Cousins’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application
to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Cousins’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
*
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).
2