UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6708

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-00-8; CA-02-16-4)

Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 7, 2005

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Charles Williams, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his motion to vacate

judgment pursuant to

(2000), which Williams

attempted to bring under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and

(2000). An appeal may not be taken

from the district court’s order unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003);

Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Williams’ notice of appeal and

informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or

successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

- 2 - 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file

a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on

either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to

establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the

movant guilty.

(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Williams’

claim does not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we

decline to authorize Williams to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -