UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7927

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cv-00152-RLV; 5:97-cr-00001- RLV-1)

Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Lamont Dudley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Sean Lamont Dudley seeks to appeal the district

court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

relief of judgment as a

(West Supp. 2012)

motion and denying it on its merits. Because Dudley’s motion

was a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion, see

(h); In re Vial,

(4th Cir. 1997), the

district court was obligated to dismiss the motion, see United

States v. Winestock,

(4th Cir. 2003), and the

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)

(2006); Jones v. Braxton,

(4th Cir. 2004).

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,

2 at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Dudley has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Dudley’s notice of appeal

and informal brief as an application to file a second or

successive § 2255 motion. See 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). Dudley’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