Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Purvis H. GORMLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-27
Citations: 139 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 05-6638
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Purvis H. GORMLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 139
Pages: 594–595

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Purvis H. GORMLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6638.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 14, 2005.
Decided: July 27, 2005.
Purvis H. Gormley, Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Purvis H. Gormley seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his "Mo tion for Relief from Final Judgment [Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)], or Alternatively, Petition for a Writ of Audita Querela," as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gormley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Gormley'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). Gormley'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