UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7340

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIE EDWARD BARNES, a/k/a Big Will, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00064-JPB-DJJ-1; 3:10-cv-00107-

JPB-DJJ) 

Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Willie Edward Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Willie Edward Barnes seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).* 

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 Barnes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

 * Because Barnes’ 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

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 

Additionally, we construe Barnes’ 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). Barnes’ 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