UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7347

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARVIN ANTONIO WHITE,

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-97-63; CA-00-909-2)

Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 7, 2005

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin Antonio White, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Marvin Antonio White, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which the district court

construed as a successive motion filed under

(2000), and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not

appealable 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 the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are

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 White has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe White’s notice of appeal and

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

successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock,

(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 that would be

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no

reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the

offense.

(b)(2), 2255 (2000). White’s claim does

not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to

authorize White 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 -