UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lloyd George MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, 118 F. App'x 771

PER CURIAM. Lloyd George Maxwell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his “New Rules Notice of Motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [2000]”. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Maxwell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, while we grant his motion to file a supplemental informal brief, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Maxwell’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003).

In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, 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 that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Maxwell’s claims do not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Maxwell 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