throbber
UNPUBLISHED
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 20-7880
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`ZIYAD YAGHI,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff - Appellee,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant - Appellant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
`Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00216-FL-8; 5:15-cv-00523-FL)
`
`
`
`Submitted: April 27, 2021
`
`
`Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
`
`Decided: May 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Ziyad Yaghi, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
`Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
`ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
`
`
`
`

`

`PER CURIAM:
`
`
`
`Ziyad Yaghi 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 dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.* Our review of the record confirms that the
`
`district court properly construed Yaghi’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 Yaghi’s notice of appeal and informal briefs as an application
`
`to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Yaghi’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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket