UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7777

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

REGINALD EUGENE HAYDEN, a/k/a Bubba,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-78; CA-05-532-7)

Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 6, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Eugene Hayden, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Reginald Hayden seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the

district court properly construed as a successive

(2000) motion, and the district court’s denial of his motion for a

certificate of appealability. 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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Hayden has not made the

requisite showing.

Additionally, we construe Hayden’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). To obtain authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner 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 fact finder would have found the

movant guilty.

(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Hayden’s

claim does not satisfy either of these conditions.

For these reasons, we deny a certificate of

appealability, decline to authorize Hayden to file a successive

§ 2255 motion, and dismiss the appeal. 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 -