UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6879
RONALD MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-00-204-1-TSE)
Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: January 19, 2006
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Miles seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of
the court’s order denying Miles’s habeas corpus petition filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying his subsequent Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59 motion. The orders are 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 his 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 Miles
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Miles’s
motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his motions for
appointment of counsel, to disqualify the district court judge, and
for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to remand, and
dismiss the appeal.
- 2 -
Additionally, we construe Miles’s notices of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. United States v. Winestock, 340
F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to
file a successive § 2254 petition, 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, 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
petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000).
Miles’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore,
we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. 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 -