UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7427

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICKY LEE VANCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CR-94-22-SGW; CA-05-516-SGW)

Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 30, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Lee Vance, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Ricky Lee Vance 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 Vance

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Vance’s 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

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims

- 2 - 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). Vance’s 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 -