UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7751
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOSAM MOHAMMED ZAKARIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CR-91-181; CA-02-1651)
Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hosam Mohammed Zakaria, Appellant Pro Se. Steven John Mulroy,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Hosam Mohammed Zakaria, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order construing his motion filed
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), as a second or successive motion under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of
jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69,
374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not
issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that
any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-
38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Zakaria has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Zakaria’s notice of appeal and
informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). In order
- 2 -
to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a
prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of
constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the
Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) 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. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)
(2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 8. Zakaria’s claims do not satisfy
either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline authorization to
Zakaria to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -