United States v. Raoul Lafond

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6743 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAOUL LAFOND, a/k/a Fletcher Busbee, a/k/a Chris Lafond, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Jamaican Jim, a/k/a Derrick Burch, a/k/a Ronald Elie, a/k/a Ronald Ely,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (6:96-cr-00212-CCE-1; 1:25-cv- 00275-CCE-JEP)

Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 3, 2026

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6743 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Raoul Lafond appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and construing Lafond’s 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

Lafond’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction

because Lafond 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 Lafond’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to

file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that his 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).