
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacob A. BOLDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-7974.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 19, 2016.
    Decided: April 21, 2016.
    Jacob A. Bolden, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
    Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jacob A. Bolden seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. According, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Additionally, we construe Bolden’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

(1) newly discovered evidence that ... would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional- law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Bolden seeks relief under Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). We conclude that Johnson would entitle Bolden to no relief because Bolden’s prior conviction for breaking and entering under North Carolina law constitutes burglary and thus was unaffected by Johnson. 135 S.Ct. at 2563; see United States v. Mungro, 754 F.3d 267, 272 (4th Cir.); cert. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 734, 190 L.Ed.2d 458 (2014); United States v. Thompson, 588 F.3d 197, 202 (4th Cir.2009). Therefore, we 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.  