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

**No. 12**  **- 8145** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. VINCENT CONSTANTINE HUTCHINS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:00

- cr - 00253

- TSE

- 1; 1:08

- cv - 00442

- TSE )

Submitted : April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Vincent Constantine Hutchins, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Vincent Constantine Hutchins seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court ’ s 2009 order denying relief under 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012 )
. 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) ; Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
A certificate of appealability will no t 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 tha t 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
pr isoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the mo tion 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 Hutchins has not made the requisite showing. To the extent that Hutchins ’ Rule 60(b) motion attack s his underlying conviction, it constitutes an unauthorized3 successive § 2255 motion over whic h the district court lacked jurisdiction. Pursuant to our holding in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Hutchins’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion. In orde r to obtain authorization to file a successive § 225 5 mo tion, 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 fou nd the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review
. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h)(1)

- (2)
. Hutchins’ claims do not satisfy either of these crite ria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 225 5 mo tion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

m aterials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED