UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6815

TERRANCE L. JAMES-BEY, Sovereign,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS; UNITED STATES CORPORATION,

 Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cv-00136-RJC)

Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrance Lamount James, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrance James-Bey seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition and denying a certificate of appealability. He 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 (2006) 

petition, and dismissing it on that basis. The orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

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

(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 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 James-Bey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

Additionally, we construe James-Bey’s 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). James-Bey’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 the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED