¶1 Warren Thomas, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion nominally filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60, which the district court construed as filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) . We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Thomas, Nos. CR-95-370; CA-02-152 (D.S.C. Jan. 16, 2002) . We also note that the Thomas’ § 2255 motion is successive and, thus, is unaffected by this Court’s recent decision in Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701 (4th Cir. 2002). * We dispense with oral argument *126 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
¶2 DISMISSED.
¶3 A panel of this court recently heard argument in United States v. Emmanuel, No. 00-7578, on the issue of whether a district court must notify a pro se litigant that it intends to construe a filing that is not so labeled as a § 2255 motion and afford the movant the opportunity to withdraw the motion in order to avoid the restrictions on second or successive motions *126 under § 2255. This case will not be controlled by the decision in Emmanuel, however, because Thomas has previously filed a first § 2255 motion and, therefore was not prejudiced by the district court’s failure to provide him notice and an opportunity to withdraw prior to construing his motion as one filed under § 2255. Thomas’ recourse is a motion in this court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1999 & Supp.2001), for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.