US v. Jervontez Leak, No. 22-6600 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6600 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERVONTEZ LAVASSIOR LEAK, a/k/a G, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cr-00232-MOC-DSC-2; 3:18-cv00629-MOC) Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: October 21, 2022 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jervontez Lavassior Leak, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jervontez Lavassior Leak 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 motion and dismissing it on that basis. * Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Leak’s Rule 60(b) 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 court’s order. Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Leak’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Leak’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). * 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.
