                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-7134



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


EMMANUEL UZUEGBUNAM,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:96-cr-00043-REP; 3:07-cv-539)


Submitted:   October 18, 2007             Decided:   October 26, 2007


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, Appellant Pro Se.    Andrew Gerald McBride,
WILEY REIN, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Emmanuel Uzuegbunam 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. 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) (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 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).        We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Uzuegbunam has not made the requisite

showing.    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.

            Additionally, we construe Uzuegbunam’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


                                   - 2 -
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).     Uzuegbunam’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 -
