Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barkley GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-28
Citations: 553 F. App'x 310
Docket Number: No. 13-7770
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barkley GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barkley GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7770.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 23, 2014.
Decided: Jan. 28, 2014.
Barkley Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas Gray Walker, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Barkley Gardner seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider, which sought reconsideration of the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debata ble, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gardner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Gardner's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). 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 eases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (2012). Gardner'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.