UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy Lee SADLER, Defendant-Appellant, 174 F. App'x 738

PER CURIAM: Jimmy Lee Sadler, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(

b) motion. It is apparent from the record that Sadler’s Rule 60(

b) motion was an attempt to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a post-conviction proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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. § 2258(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 587 U.S. 322, 336, 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 Sadler has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. In addition, we construe Sadler’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003).

In order to obtain authorization to file a second § 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 sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the petitioner guilty. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C) (2000).

Because Sadler asserts neither a new rule of constitutional law made retroactively applicable nor newly discovered evidence, we conclude that he has not demonstrated grounds on which to grant authorization under § 2244. We grant Sadler’s motion to supplement the record; however, we deny the request contained in that motion to vacate the district court’s order denying a certificate of appealability. 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.