UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Lee CASHWELL, Defendant-Appellant, 83 F. App'x 574

OPINION PER CURIAM. Gerald Lee Cashwell, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion for 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) relief and his Rule 60(

b) motion for reconsideration of that order. We deny the certificate of appealability and dismiss Cashwell’s appeal of the denial of his § 2255 motion. We also find that Cash-well’s Rule 60(

b) motion is properly characterized as an attempt to file a successive § 2255 motion. We deny Cashwell authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, and, because the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter its order, we vacate the order of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss. 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. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 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 Cashwell has not satisfied either standard. Cashwell’s attempted motion for reconsideration, brought pursuant to Rule 60(b), is best characterized as an attempt to file a successive § 2255 motion. A prisoner wishing to file a successive § 2255 motion must first gain authorization from the circuit court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(2000). Without such authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claims. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir.2003).

Because the district court lacked jurisdiction over the claim, we must construe Cashwell’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a successive § 2255 motion. In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a movant 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 factfinder would have found the movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000).

Cashwell does not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Cashwell to file a successive § 2255 motion. We also vacate the order of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the motion. Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Cashwell authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, vacate the order of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss.

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; VACATED AND REMANDED; AUTHORIZATION DENIED.