US v. Ijaz Khan, No. 19-6829 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6829 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. IJAZ KHAN, Defendant - Appellant.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-01408LMB) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
