UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7029

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TONY CURTIS SPIVEY, a/k/a Tony-Red,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM- 19; 4:16-cv-00052-AWA)

Submitted: January 25, 2019 Decided: February 7, 2019

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Curtis Spivey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Tony Curtis Spivey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which was in substance a successive

(2012)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2) (2012). 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 Spivey has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Spivey’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an

application to file a second or 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 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 (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

(h). Spivey’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