Gregory D. Anderson appeals the district courts order construing his postjudgment motion as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying it on that basis.
*
Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Andersons 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 courts order. Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Andersons notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Andersons 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
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
. A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district courts jurisdictional categorization of a motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.