UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7207
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARIO SALAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (CR-98-166)
Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 29, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mario Salas, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen David Schiller, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mario Salas seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motions filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) &
60(b). To appeal these orders in a post-conviction proceeding,
Salas must establish his entitlement to a certificate of
appealability. 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 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 (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 Salas has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Salas’ notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a movant must
assert a claim based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional
- 2 -
law or (2) newly discovered evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Salas’
claim does not satisfy either of these standards. Therefore, we
decline to authorize 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 -