Case Name: Claude Henry MAZZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.H. POWELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-26
Citations: 142 F. App'x 170
Docket Number: No. 05-6743
Parties: Claude Henry MAZZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.H. POWELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 170–171

Head Matter:
Claude Henry MAZZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.H. POWELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-6743.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2005.
Claude Henry Mazza, Appellant pro se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Claude Henry Mazza seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and his motion to amend his § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mazza has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Mazza's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Mazza's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000). Mazza's claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. 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