UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7105

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT EDWARD SILLS, a/k/a Bobby,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00148-AWA-5)

Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 22, 2013

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Edward Sills, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Robert Edward Sills seeks to appeal the district

court’s order treating his filing as a successive

(West Supp. 2013) motion, and dismissing it on that

basis. 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 Sills has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Sills’ notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

2 § 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, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

(h) (West Supp. 2013). Sills’ 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

* Insofar as Sills may be seeking relief under

(c) (2006), we agree with the district court that Sills is not eligible for a sentence reduction under the Sentencing Guidelines.

3