**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7**  **432**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. PORTEAL GROOM , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of M aryland , at Baltimore
. Peter J. Messitte , Senior District Judge. ( 1:95

- cr - 00294

- 3; 8:99

- cv - 02881

- PJM )

Submitted : May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.

Po rteal Groom , Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem , Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Porteal Groom seeks to appeal the district court’s
text or der s denying his motion to reinstate his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1 ) (A) (2006) . 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)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the distri ct court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Groom has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, although Groom characterizes his motion to reinstate his § 2255 motion as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)3 motion, we conclude that it is a successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we construe Groom’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United 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) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to estab lish 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. § 22 55(h ) (West Supp. 2010)
. Groom’ s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to fi le 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