**UN PUBLISHED** 
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 un published per curiam opinion
. Robert Edward Sills, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublishe d opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Edward Sills seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his filing as a successive 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West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. Sla ck 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 appeala bility and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Sills’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive3 § 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 m ovant 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. § 22 55(h ) (West Supp. 2013)
. Sills’ claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to fi le 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 decisio nal
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.