Filed: Oct. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6521 MARK MADISON LOWE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director Department of Corrections for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00155-HEH-RCY) Submitted: September 27, 2018 Decided: October 10, 2018 Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6521 MARK MADISON LOWE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director Department of Corrections for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00155-HEH-RCY) Submitted: September 27, 2018 Decided: October 10, 2018 Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Se..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6521
MARK MADISON LOWE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director Department of Corrections for the Commonwealth
of Virginia,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00155-HEH-RCY)
Submitted: September 27, 2018 Decided: October 10, 2018
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Madison Lowe, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Madison Lowe appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b), (d) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and
dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny as unnecessary a
certificate of appealability (COA), and affirm. See United States v. McRae,
793 F.3d
392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e need not issue a COA before determining whether the
district court erred in dismissing [a] purported Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized
successive habeas petition.”). 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
2