UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6808



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TERRY LEE ROSEBORO,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:00-cr-00014-ALL; 5:06-cv-00055)


Submitted: July 25, 2006                    Decided: August 3, 2006


Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Terry Lee Roseboro, Appellant Pro Se. C. Nicks Williams, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Terry Lee Roseboro seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (2000) and 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

(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,

, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).    We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roseboro has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

           Additionally, we construe Roseboro’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, 

, 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). Roseboro’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 -