UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7401

DAVID CAESAR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(0:12-cv-00316-MGL)

Submitted: March 26, 2014 Decided: April 3, 2014

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Caesar, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Caesar seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as unauthorized and successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition. Caesar also 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 petition, and dismissing it on that 

basis. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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. 
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Caesar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Caesar’s notice of appeal as 

to the district court’s denial of relief on his Rule 60(b) 

motion 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) (2012). Caesar’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