United States v. Michael Carter

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6860 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6860

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL KENNY CARTER, a/k/a Blaze,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00351-JFA-1)

Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated in part and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Kenny Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6860 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Michael Kenny Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Motion

for Void Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). * We have reviewed the record on

appeal and conclude that Carter’s Rule 60(b) motion was actually a second or successive

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion because he sought to collaterally attack his conviction and the

district court previously adjudicated his first § 2255 motion on the merits. Carter did not

obtain authorization from this court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, and, thus,

the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Carter’s motion. United States v.

Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by United States

v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2015). As a result, we “vacate the [portion of the] order

denying [Carter’s Motion for Void Judgment] and remand to the district court with

instructions to dismiss the motion.” Id. at 208.

Next, consistent with our decision in Winestock, we construe Carter’s notice of

appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.

Upon review, we conclude that Carter’s claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28

U.S.C. § 2255(h).

Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the district court’s order denying the Motion

for Void Judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss that motion for lack of

* The district court’s order also denied two other postconviction motions, but Carter forfeited appellate review of the denial of those motions by failing to challenge that aspect of the district court’s order on appeal. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6860 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

jurisdiction, and we deny authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See

McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-400. 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.

VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS