UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7162

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WILLIE BRIAN WILLIAMS,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00112-TSE-1; 1:11-cv-00220-TSE)

Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Brian Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Jackson Allen, Marc Harry Pachon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jack Hanly, Assistant United States Attorney, Jeffrey L. Shih, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Willie Brian Williams seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his unauthorized successive

(West Supp. 2011) motion for lack of jurisdiction. 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) (2006). 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 Williams has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Williams’s notice of appeal

and informal brief as an application to file a second or

2 successive § 2255 motion. 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) 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; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review.

(h)(1)-(2). Williams’s

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