                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-6299


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

GEORGE THOMAS CABEL, a/k/a PY,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:97-cr-00173-TDS-1; 1:13-cv-00715-TDS-JLW)


Submitted:   June 26, 2014                 Decided:    June 30, 2014


Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


George Thomas Cabel, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            George        Thomas    Cabel        seeks   to    appeal       the      district

court’s    order     accepting      the     recommendation          of    the     magistrate

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

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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)(B) (2012).             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) (2012).                    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 Cabel has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.



                                             2
              Additionally, we construe Cabel’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 that . . . would be
      sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
      evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
      found the movant guilty of the offense; or

      (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
      to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
      that was previously unavailable.

28   U.S.C.    § 2255(h)   (2012).        Cabel’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    this   court   and   argument    would    not   aid   the    decisional

process.

                                                                        DISMISSED




                                      3
