US v. Raoul Lafond - Affirmation of District Court Order

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed March 3rd, 2026

Detected March 4th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's decision to construe Raoul Lafond's motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive motion to vacate a sentence. The court denied Lafond's request to file a second or successive motion.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order which dismissed Raoul Lafond's motion for relief from judgment. The district court had correctly construed Lafond's motion as an unauthorized, successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, over which it lacked jurisdiction without prior authorization from the appellate court. The appellate court also denied Lafond's request to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, finding his claims did not meet the required standard.

This decision has limited practical implications for regulated entities as it pertains to a specific criminal appeal. However, it reinforces the strict procedural requirements for filing successive post-conviction relief motions in federal courts. Individuals seeking to file such motions must obtain prior authorization from the relevant circuit court of appeals, or their motions will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 6743 UNITED ST ATES OF AMER ICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAOUL LAFOND, a/k/a Fletcher Busbee,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 Ro nald Elie, a/k/a Ronald Ely, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the Middle District of No rth Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Ch ief District Judge. (6:96 - cr - 002 12 - CCE -1; 1:25 - cv - 00275 - CCE - JEP) Submitted: February 26, 202 6 Decided: March 3, 2026 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAU M, Circuit Judges, an d FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Raoul Lafond a ppeals the district cou rt’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing Lafon d’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 § 2 255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because Lafond failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this cou rt. 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 (4t h Cir. 2003), we construe Lafond ’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an app lication to file a second or successive § 2255 mo tion. Upon review, we conclude that his claims do not meet the relevant standard. S ee 28 U. S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument becau se 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 co urt’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 Ci r. 2015).