UNPUBLISHED

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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. 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 attacks

his underlying conviction, it constitutes an unauthorized 
3

successive § 2255 motion over which 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 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, 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 criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion.

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 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED