UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7432

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PORTEAL GROOM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, 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.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Porteal 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders denying his motion to reinstate his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion, and denying his motion 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)(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 district 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 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. 2010). 

Groom’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