**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7824** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. WENDELL EDWARD BETANCOURT, a/k/a Shawn Nelson, a/k/a Fire , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg
. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. ( 3:01

- cr - 00025

- JPB

- JES

- 5 ; 3:12

- cv - 00083

- JPB

- JES )

Submitted : January 30, 2013 Decided: February 7, 2013

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Wendell Edward Betancourt , Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Thomas Oliver Mucklow , Assistant U nited S tates Attorney s, Martinsb urg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wendell Edward Betancourt seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying and dismissing his successive 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 201 2) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 substa ntial 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 a ssessment 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 review ed the record and conclude that Betancourt has not mad e the required showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Betancourt’s notice of appeal, informal brief , and supplemental informal brief as an3 application to file a second or successive § 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, not previously discoverable b y 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

unav ailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. A. § 22 55(h ) (West Supp. 2012).
Betancourt’ s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to fi le a successive § 2255 motion. We d ispense 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 decisional
process. DISMISSED