UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6686
RONALD MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 06-7028
RONALD MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (1:06-cv-00344-TSE)
Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: November 2, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Miles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Ronald Miles seeks to
appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and
dismissing it on that basis, and subsequent orders denying his
motions for reconsideration. 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 that
any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. 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 grant Miles’s motion
to construe his motion to remand as a supplemental brief in case
No. 06-7028, deny his motion to remand in case No. 06-6686, deny
his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
- 3 -
Additionally, we construe Miles’s notice 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
- 4 -