UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6135
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO LAMONT LIGHTFOOT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CR-99-409-PJM; CA-02-2836-PJM)
Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 21, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Lamont Lightfoot, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Lamont Lightfoot seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as successive his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion seeking reconsideration of the court’s order denying relief
on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369-70 (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 both that the
district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Lightfoot has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Lightfoot’s notice of appeal
and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995
- 2 -
(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). Lightfoot’s claims do not satisfy
either of these conditions. 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -