UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6593

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CALVIN WOODARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-299-MJG; CA-03-788-MJG)

Submitted: October 18, 2005 Decided: October 20, 2005

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Woodard, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Calvin Woodard, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to

reconsider his underlying

(2000) motion. An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability.

(c)(1) (2000). 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 that his constitutional claims are 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 Woodard has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.1

Additionally, we construe Woodard’s notice of appeal and

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

* We note that the district court should have dismissed the Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction as a successive motion. See United States v. Winestock,

(4th Cir.), cert. denied,

(2003). Nonetheless, Woodard fails to establish the criteria for issuance of a certificate of appealability. See Reid v. Angelone,

(4th Cir. 2004).

- 2 - successive § 2255 motion. See Winestock,

. 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). Woodard’s claims do not satisfy

either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to grant Woodard

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 -