UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6626

CALVIN PERRY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior 

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00523-JRS-RCY)

Submitted: August 10, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Perry seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (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) (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.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Perry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

his motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
3

Additionally, we construe Perry’s notice of appeal, motion 

for a certificate of appealability, 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). Perry’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