UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7365
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SPENCER BOWENS, a/k/a Melvin McCurdy, a/k/a
Doc Johnson, a/k/a Scooter, a/k/a Clyde,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-98-110; CA-02-211-3)
Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 22, 2006
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Spencer Bowens, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Spencer Bowens, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
and alternative request for a writ of coram nobis as an
unauthorized successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000),
and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. 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 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 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. 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 Bowens
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Bowens’s notice of appeal and
informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v.
- 2 -
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 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
that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the
petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255
(2000). Bowens’s claims do not satisfy either of these conditions.
We therefore 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 -