UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7585
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARROLL EUGENE DODSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-106; CA-05-562)
Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carroll Eugene Dodson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carroll Eugene Dodson appeals the district court’s order
construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized
successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and
dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. 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). A certificate of appealability will not issue
for claims addressed by a district court 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 (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 Dodson has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
We also construe Dodson’s notice of appeal and informal brief
as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a
- 2 -
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 to cases on
collateral review, or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to
establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found petitioner
guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 8. Dodson’s claims do not
satisfy either of these standards. We therefore 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 -