UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7888

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CEDRIC MONTE LITTLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:05-cr-00050-H-1; 4:12-cv-00182-H)

Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: February 26, 2013

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cedric Monte Little, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Cedric Monte Little seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his

(West Supp. 2012) motion as successive and without

authorization from this court. 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 Little has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Little’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, 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) (West Supp. 2012). Little’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