UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6960
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
REGINALD EUGENE HAYDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:94-cr-00078-jlk-3)
Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Eugene Hayden, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Hayden seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the
district court properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000) motion, and the district court’s denial of his motion for a
certificate of appealability. 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 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 or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. 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 Hayden has not
made the requisite showing.
Additionally, we construe Hayden’s notice of appeal and
informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). To obtain authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
- 2 -
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 fact finder would have found the
movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Hayden’s
claim does not satisfy either of these conditions.
We deny Hayden’s motion for a certificate of
appealability, decline to authorize Hayden to file a successive
§ 2255 motion, and dismiss the appeal. 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 -