UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-7559



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


LANCELOT WARD,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:94-
cr-00454-PJM; 8:00-cv-03018-PJM)


Submitted:   March 29, 2007                 Decided:   April 3, 2007


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lancelot Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Chan Park, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Lancelot Ward seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.               He also

seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his motion,

filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), as a successive § 2255 motion

and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.            The orders are not

appealable 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 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 Ward has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

            Additionally, we construe Ward’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


                                   - 2 -
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, 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).     Ward’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 -