                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 11-6119


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

OCTAVIUS S. CLINE, a/k/a Toby,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:02-cr-01358-HMH-12; 6:07-cv-70092-HMH; 6:09-
cv-70104-HMH; 6:10-cv-70303-HMH)


Submitted:   May 19, 2011                         Decided:   May 24, 2011


Before TRAXLER,    Chief    Judge,   and   AGEE   and   KEENAN,   Circuit
Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Octavius S. Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               Octavius S. Cline seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 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) (2006); 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) (2006).                      When the district court

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the

district       court’s     assessment        of        the    constitutional          claims    is

debatable       or    wrong.       Slack      v.       McDaniel,      529    U.S.      473,    484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural

ruling    is    debatable,        and    that         the    motion   states      a   debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                              Slack, 529 U.S.

at   484-85.          We   have    independently              reviewed      the   record       and

conclude       that    Cline      has       not       made     the    requisite        showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.



                                                  2
            Additionally, we construe Cline’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

§ 2255 motion.            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) 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;      or      (2)     a       new     rule    of

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by

the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review.                                      28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255(h) (West           Supp.      2010).         Cline’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




                                                3
