UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7522

VINCENT LEE FOREMAN, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-213-2) Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Lee Foreman, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).*By order filed April 5, 2004, this appeal was placed in abeyance for Jones v. Braxton , No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision in Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones . - 2 - PER CURIAM: Vincent Lee Foreman seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) as an unauthorized successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). *An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabi lity. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foreman has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Finally, in accordance with United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003),- 3 - we construe Foreman’s notice of appeal and informal brief as a motion for authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a successive habeas corpus petition. To obtain permission to bring a second or successive § 2254 petition, a movant must show that his claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or (2) relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. We conclude that Foreman has not satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny Foreman’s implicit application for leave to file a successive § 2254 petition, deny Foreman’s motion for certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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