UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-8031
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EMORY CLASH JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-
97-309-L)
Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 19, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emory Clash Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Emory Clash Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and a
subsequent order 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); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363
(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 Jones has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
Additionally, we construe Jones’ notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995
(2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive
- 2 -
§ 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) (2000). Jones’ claims do not satisfy either
of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Jones 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 -