Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Earl MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-25
Citations: 289 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 08-6395
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Earl MARSHALL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 289
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Earl MARSHALL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6395.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 19, 2008.
Decided: June 25, 2008.
Robert Earl Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, S. David Schiller, Michael Cornell Wallace, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Earl Marshall 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. Ange lone, 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 Marshall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Marshall's notice of appeal and motion for a certificate of appealability 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). Marshall'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.