UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-6960



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


REGINALD EUGENE HAYDEN,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:94-cr-00078-jlk-3)


Submitted: August 31, 2006                 Decided: September 8, 2006


Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Reginald Eugene Hayden, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Reginald Hayden seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the

district court properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion, and the district court’s denial of his motion for a

certificate of appealability.          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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable.           See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000);

Rose   v.   Lee,   

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

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hayden has not

made the requisite showing.

            Additionally, we construe Hayden’s notice of appeal and

informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or

successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 

, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).          To obtain authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on


                                       - 2 -
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

movant guilty.       28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000).       Hayden’s

claim does not satisfy either of these conditions.

          We     deny       Hayden’s     motion   for   a   certificate   of

appealability, decline to authorize Hayden to file a successive

§ 2255 motion, and dismiss the appeal.              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 -