UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6568

RAYMOND L. CARTER, JR., a/k/a Raymond Lewis Carter, Jr.,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

 Respondent – Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

 Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (4:10-cv-03167-JFA)

Submitted: September 13, 2011 Decided: September 15, 2011

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond L. Carter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond L. Carter, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge, treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, 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)(A) (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 petition 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 Carter has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal.
3

Additionally, we construe Carter’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) (2006). Carter’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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED