UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7773

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONNIE BOWMAN, a/k/a Young,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:01-cr-00349-CMC-1; 3:05-cv-00677-CMC)

Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: February 25, 2013

Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Anne Hunter 

Young, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Bowman seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) entitled 

“Independent Action in Equity.* The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). 

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 Bowman has not made the 

 * Because Bowman’s Rule 60(b) motion directly attacked his 

conviction, it was, in essence, an unauthorized and successive 

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion over which the 

district court lacked jurisdiction. United States v. Winestock, 

340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003).
3

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Bowman’s notice of appeal 

and informal brief as an application to file a second or 

successive § 2255 motion. Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. 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). Bowman’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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED