United States v. Justin Strom

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 1, 2023
• Docket: 23-6356
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6356 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6356

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JUSTIN DEONTA STROM, a/k/a Jae Dee, a/k/a Jae, a/k/a J-Dirt,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00159-LMB-1; 1:23-cv-00342)

Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: September 1, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Justin Deonta Strom, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6356 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Justin Deonta Strom appeals the district court’s order construing his February 26,

2023, postjudgment filing as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and

dismissing it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. ∗ Our review of the record confirms

that the district court properly construed Strom’s filing as a successive § 2255 motion over

which it lacked jurisdiction because Strom 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. United States v. Strom, No. 1:12-cr-

00159-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 15, 2023).

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th

Cir. 2003), we construe Strom’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to

file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Strom’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 postjudgment filing as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).