UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7227

ROBERT DALE SMART,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION PAROLE AND PARDON 

SERVICES,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (2:13-cv-03621-GRA)

Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Dale Smart, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Dale Smart seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, 

treating his motion filed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

59(e) and 60(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) as a successive 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and dismissing it as 

unauthorized. Smart also seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); 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) 

(2012). 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 district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Smart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Smart’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2254 petition. 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) (2012). Smart’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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED