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

**No. 13**  **- 7973** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. GONZALES MARCH, a/k/a Gun, a/k/a Gon , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. ( 3:08

- cr - 00590

- CMC

- 6 )

Submitted : April 24, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Gonzales March, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Julius Ness Richardson, John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorneys, James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gonzales March seeks to appeal the district court’s order s treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a n
unaut horized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion, and dismissing it on that basis and denying his motion to alter or amend the order . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1) (B) (2012) . 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 standar d 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 d istrict 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.
W e have independently reviewed the record and conclude that March has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.3 Additionally, we construe March ’s no tice 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 c laims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that

. . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court , that was previously unavailable

. 28 U.S.C. § 22 55(h ). March ’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 th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED