Gregory D. Anderson appeals the district courts orders construing his postjudgment motion to withdraw his guilty plea and his motion seeking relief from the courts prior order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and denying them on that basis.
*
Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Andersons motions as successive § 2255 motions 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 deny Andersons motions to remove restitution and to appoint counsel and affirm the district courts orders. Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Andersons notices of appeal and informal briefs 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). Therefore, we deny Andersons motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary. PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.