UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7771
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROMERO DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-98-360)
Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: April 20, 2005
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Romero Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, James Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Romero Davis, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motion to vacate
judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), which Davis attempted
to bring under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and denying his motion for
reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken from the final order
in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A
certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by
a district court 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 are also
debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(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 Davis has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Davis’ 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 sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact
finder would have found the movant guilty. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Davis’ claim does not satisfy
either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize
Davis 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 -