                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7761



KEVIN L. GLASS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CA-05-460-REP)


Submitted:   May 10, 2006                   Decided:   May 25, 2006


Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kevin L. Glass, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

          Kevin L. Glass seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) petition.       The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (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 Glass has not

made the requisite showing.    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal.

          Additionally, we construe Glass’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.    United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).   In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2254 petition, 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

petitioner guilty of the offense.         28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000).

Glass’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore,

we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.

            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 -
