UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7427
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICKY LEE VANCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-94-22-SGW; CA-05-516-SGW)
Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 30, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Lee Vance, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Lee Vance seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as successive his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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
(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 the constitutional claims
is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings
by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Vance
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Vance’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340
F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
- 2 -
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, not previously
discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the
movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255
(2000). Vance’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.
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 -