Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Devon Dale BECKFORD, a/k/a Chubbs, a/k/a Trubbey, a/k/a Bull, a/k/a Big Bull, a/k/a Fats, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-29
Citations: 186 F. App'x 384
Docket Number: No. 06-6158
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Devon Dale BECKFORD, a/k/a Chubbs, a/k/a Trubbey, a/k/a Bull, a/k/a Big Bull, a/k/a Fats, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 384–385

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Devon Dale BECKFORD, a/k/a Chubbs, a/k/a Trubbey, a/k/a Bull, a/k/a Big Bull, a/k/a Fats, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-6158.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2006.
Decided: June 29, 2006.
Devon Dale Beckford, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Devon Dale Beckford seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. 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 that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Beckford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Beckford's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 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) 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 movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Beckford'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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.