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`Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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`Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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