UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7773

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONNIE BOWMAN, a/k/a Young,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00349-CMC-1; 3:05-cv-00677-CMC)

Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: February 25, 2013

Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Anne Hunter Young, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Ronnie Bowman seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) entitled

“Independent Action in Equity. * 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 Bowman has not made the

* Because Bowman’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 requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Bowman’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). Bowman’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