UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7005

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JIMMY LEE SADLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-160; CA-01-4326-HMH)

Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: March 15, 2006

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Lee Sadler, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jimmy Lee Sadler, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

motion. It is apparent from the record that Sadler’s Rule 60(b)

motion was an attempt to file a successive

(2000)

motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a post-

conviction 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 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 Sadler has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

In addition, we construe Sadler’s notice of appeal and

informal brief on appeal as an application for authorization to

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

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain

- 2 - authorization to file a second § 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 petitioner guilty.

(b)(3)(C) (2000).

Because Sadler asserts neither a new rule of constitutional law

made retroactively applicable nor newly discovered evidence, we

conclude that he has not demonstrated grounds on which to grant

authorization under § 2244.

We grant Sadler’s motion to supplement the record; however, we

deny the request contained in that motion to vacate the district

court’s order denying a certificate of appealability. 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 -