UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8127
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DON PRINCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (3:01-cv-02047-JFA; 3:96-cr-00122-JFA)
Submitted: January 13, 2009 Decided: January 20, 2009
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Don Prince, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Mark C. Moore,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Don Prince, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing his motion filed pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which the district court construed as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006);
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) (2006). 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 Prince has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Prince’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
2
States v. 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 (2006). Prince’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