UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6961

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JAMES ROCKETT, III, a/k/a James Rocket, a/k/a James Rockett,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:05-cr-00135-WDK-JEB-1; 2:07-cv-00336-WDK)

Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 28, 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Rockett, III, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Rockett, III, 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. 2010) motion, and 

dismissing it on that basis. 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). 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 

Rockett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
3

Additionally, we construe Rockett’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). Rockett’s claims do not satisfy either of these 

criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive 

§ 2255 motion.

Finally, we deny Rockett’s motion to seal and motion 

to subpoena or submit witness statements. 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