UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7340

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIE EDWARD BARNES, a/k/a Big Will,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00064-JPB-DJJ-1; 3:10-cv-00107- JPB-DJJ)

Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Edward Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Willie Edward Barnes seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). *

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(c)(2). When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,

.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Barnes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

* Because Barnes’ Rule 60(b) motion directly attacked his conviction, it was, in essence, an unauthorized and successive

(West Supp. 2012) motion over which the district court lacked jurisdiction. United States v. Winestock,

(4th Cir. 2003).

2 deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Barnes’ notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

§ 2255 motion. Winestock,

. In order to obtain

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner

must assert claims based on either: (1) 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; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable,

made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral

review.

(h). Barnes’ 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