United States v. Travanti Roberts ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6509 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6509
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRAVANTI ROBERTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Robert Bryan Harwell, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00370-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02764-
TLW)
Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024
Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travanti Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6509 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Travanti Roberts appeals the district court’s order construing his original and
amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for relief from judgment as unauthorized,
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions, and denying them for lack of jurisdiction. ∗ Our
review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Roberts’ Rule 60(b)
motions as successive § 2255 motions over which it lacked jurisdiction because Roberts
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), abrogated in part on other grounds by McRae, 793 F.3d at 397, we construe
Roberts’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Roberts’ 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