UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 08-6213



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.


EDWARD HAROLD SAUNDERS, JR.,

                  Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:07-cv-00458-FDW; 3:94-cr-00017-FDW-11)


Submitted:    April 24, 2008                 Decided:   April 30, 2008


Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., seeks to appeal (1) the

district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as

a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on

that basis, and (2) the district court’s subsequent denial of his

motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).               The orders are 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   Saunders   has   not     made   the   requisite   showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

           Additionally, we construe Saunders’ 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, 340


                                   - 2 -
F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).        In order to obtain authorization to

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).   Saunders’ 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 -