UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7728

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUTHER EARL SATTERFIELD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,

Chief District Judge. (5:04-cr-00173-D-1; 5:09-cv-00276-D)

Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Luther Earl Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se. William E. H. 

Creech, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Barbara Dickerson 

Kocher, Assistant United States Attorney Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Luther Earl Satterfield seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a 

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on 

that basis, and denying his motion for a sentence reduction 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). The portion of the order

denying the Rule 60(b) motion is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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 Satterfield has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 
3

the portion of the appeal challenging the denial of the Rule 

60(b) motion.

Additionally, we construe Satterfield’s notice of 

appeal and informal brief as an 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 that . . . would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 

that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (2012). Satterfield’s claims do not satisfy 

either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion.

We have reviewed the record regarding Satterfield’s 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion and affirm the court’s order denying the 

motion based on the reasoning of the district court. United 

States v. Satterfield, Nos. 5:04-cr-00173-D-1; 5:09-cv-00276-D

(E.D.N.C. Oct. 3, 2013). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal as to the Rule 60(b) motion 

and affirm the remainder of the order denying relief on the 

§ 3582(c) motion. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
4

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART