CORRECTED OPINION

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7757

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

P. W. FERGUSON, a/k/a PW, a/k/a Patrick William Ferguson,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00061-JFA-6; 3:10-cv-70252-JFA)

Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 23, 2013

Corrected Opinion Filed: January 31, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

P. W. Ferguson, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United States Attorney, Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

P. W. Ferguson 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,

, 336–38 (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, 529 U.S.

at 484–85. We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Ferguson has not made the requisite showing.

* Because Ferguson’s 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 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Ferguson’s 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). Ferguson’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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3