US v. Ricky Pendleton, No. 19-7831 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7831 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON, Defendant - Appellant. No. 20-6096 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:96-cr-00001-JPB-JPM-1; 3:19-cv00170-JPB-JPM) Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 21, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Vincent Pendleton, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy David Helman, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Ricky Pendleton appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for relief from judgment as unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motions and dismissing them on that basis. * Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Pendleton’s Rule 60(b) 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) (2018); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Pendleton’s notices of appeal and informal briefs as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Pendleton’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). 3
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.
