UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7105

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT EDWARD SILLS, a/k/a Bobby,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:03-cr-00148-AWA-5)

Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 22, 2013

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Edward Sills, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, 

Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Edward Sills seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his filing as a successive 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 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)(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) (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 Sills has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Sills’ notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 
3

§ 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 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.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2013). Sills’ 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

 * Insofar as Sills may be seeking relief under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c) (2006), we agree with the district court that Sills is 

not eligible for a sentence reduction under the Sentencing 

Guidelines.