UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6887
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GREGORY HINTON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:00-cr-00180-GBL-1)
Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Dabney P. Langhorne, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Hinton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion and dismissing it on
that basis and denying relief on his related motions. 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 Hinton has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Hinton’s notice of appeal
and informal brief as an application to file a second or
successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. 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) 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 movant guilty of the
offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously
unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on
collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2009).
Hinton’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.
Therefore, we 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