UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ARTHUR F. JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-99-362)

Submitted: October 18, 2005 Decided: October 21, 2005

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur F. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Charles Duane, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Arthur F. Jones, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as successive his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying relief on

his

(2000) motion. The order is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability.

(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

(4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability

will not issue 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 the

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Jones’ notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under

. United States v. Winestock,

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

- 2 - 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, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense.

(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Jones’ claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -