Case Name: Jerry W. NELSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry McMASTER, Attorney General; Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-24
Citations: 203 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 06-7387
Parties: Jerry W. NELSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry McMASTER, Attorney General; Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
Jerry W. NELSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry McMASTER, Attorney General; Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-7387.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 24, 2006.
Jerry W. Nelson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jerry W. Nelson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 Nelson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Nelson'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 factfin-der would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000). Nelson'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.