Case Name: Sherman Elwood SKIPPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer H. LANGLEY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-19
Citations: 200 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 06-6279
Parties: Sherman Elwood SKIPPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer H. LANGLEY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 200
Pages: 238–239

Head Matter:
Sherman Elwood SKIPPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer H. LANGLEY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-6279.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 31, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 19, 2006.
Sherman Elwood Skipper, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sherman Elwood Skipper seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as successive and dismissing it on that basis. The district court also denied Skipper's motion for reconsideration and his request for a certificate of appealability. These orders are not appealable 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 Skipper has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
Construing Skipper's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, that application fails. 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 factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000). Skipper's claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.