
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raheem MAJEED, a/k/a Mitch, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6109
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 25, 2017
    Decided: May 31, 2017
    Raheem Majeed, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Stanley D. Ragsdale, John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raheem Majeed appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Our review of the record confirms that Majeed sought successive § 2255 relief without authorization from this court, and we therefore hold that the district court properly dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h) (2012). Thus, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

We construe Majeed’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 newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact-finder would have found the movant guilty of the offense, or a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(l)-(2). Majeed’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. 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 
      
       Majeed also moved for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2012). As the district court noted, Majeed cannot rely on that section because he failed to timely notice an appeal as required by it.
     