UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7873

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NORWOOD WALLACE BARBER, JR., a/k/a Pee Wee Barber,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

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

District Judge. (5:05-cr-00015-SGW-1; 5:12-cv-80501-SGW-RSB)

Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norwood Wallace Barber, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. 

Hoffman, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Norwood Wallace Barber, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing his motion filed pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) or, alternatively, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2012) as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion.* 

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. 

 * To the extent Barber alleged a defect in the collateral 

review process, and his motion constituted a true Rule 60(b) 

motion, Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535-36 & n.7 (2005); 

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206-08 (4th Cir. 

2003), we conclude the district court properly denied relief. 
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Barber has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Barber’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 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.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2012). Barber’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