UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8072

FREDDIE EUGENE CASEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BUCKINGHAM CORRECTIONAL CENTER WARDEN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (7:97-cv-00466-JPJ)

Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Freddie Eugene Casey, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Lisa Rae 

McKeel, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Freddie Eugene Casey seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a 

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, 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)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 

369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 petition 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 Casey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
3

Additionally, we construe Casey’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2254 petition. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a 

successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based 

on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously 

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on 

collateral review; or (2) 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 petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(2) (2006). Casey’s claims do not satisfy either of 

these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2254 petition.

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