UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7925
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RYAN LEE ZATER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-00-626; CA-00-22465-3-20)
Submitted: April 8, 2005 Decided: April 25, 2005
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ryan Lee Zater, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ryan Lee Zater seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying as successive 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). 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Zater has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
In accordance with United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995 (2003), we construe
Zater’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an
application to file a successive § 2255 motion. In order to obtain
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a movant must
assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional
law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court
- 2 -
to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence
sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact finder would have
found the movant guilty. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000). Zater
does not satisfy either of these conditions. Accordingly, we deny
Zater’s implicit application for leave to file a second § 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 -