UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7836
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREGORY C. BUTLER, a/k/a Chuck,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
District Judge. (CR-00-16; CA-01-96-4)
Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory C. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, Assistant
United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gregory C. Butler, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which the district court
construed as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and
dismissed 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 Jones v.
Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are
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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Butler has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Butler’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
- 2 -
200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995 (2003). In order
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)(2),
2255 (2000). Butler’s claims do not satisfy either of these
conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Butler 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 -