United States v. Ijaz Khan ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-6829
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    IJAZ KHAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00130-LMB-1; 1:18-cv-01408-
    LMB)
    Submitted: October 15, 2019                                   Decided: October 18, 2019
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ijaz Khan, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Roscoe Snook, Special Assistant United States
    Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ijaz Khan 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 (2012)
    motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. Our review of the record confirms that
    the district court properly construed Khan’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255
    motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because Khan failed to obtain prefiling
    authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h) (2012); United
    States v. McRae, 
    793 F.3d 392
    , 397-400 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 Khan’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file
    a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we find that Khan’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
    *
    We deny as unnecessary a certificate of appealability. 
    McRae, 793 F.3d at 400
    .
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-6829

Filed Date: 10/18/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2019