UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7193

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WALTER DOUGLAS BROOKS, III, a/k/a Bootsie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CR-02-135-GBL)

Submitted: February 6, 2006 Decided: February 27, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Douglas Brooks, III, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Riley Pedersen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Walter Douglas Brooks, III, appeals the district court’s

order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an

unauthorized successive motion under

(2000), and

denying the 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 or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. 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 Brooks has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

We also construe Brooks’s notice of appeal and informal

brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under

. See United States v. Winestock,

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

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

- 2 - 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 factfinder would have found the movant

guilty of the offense.

¶ 8. Brooks’s claims do

not satisfy either of these standards. We therefore decline to

authorize 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 -