UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FAHED T. TAWALBEH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:97-cr-00024-SGW-RSB-7; 7:00-cv-00858-SGW)

Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fahed T. Tawalbeh, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fahed T. Tawalbeh seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in his 

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) proceedings.* 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 Tawalbeh has not made the requisite showing. 

 * Because Tawalbeh’s Rule 60(b) motion directly attacked his 

conviction, it was, in essence, an unauthorized and successive 

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion over which the district court lacked 

jurisdiction. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206 

(4th Cir. 2003).
3

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Tawalbeh’s 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). Tawalbeh’s 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