UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6195



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


GEORGE CHAMBERS, a/k/a Dave,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:94-cr-00089-JRS)


Submitted: July 20, 2006                        Decided: July 26, 2006


Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


George Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            George Chambers seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders construing his petition for writ of audita querela and

motion for reconsideration as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motions, and dismissing them on that basis.                 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    the    district      court’s     assessment   of   his

constitutional claims debatable and that any dispositive procedural

rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong.                    See

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    Chambers      has   not     made   the   requisite    showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

            Additionally, we construe Chambers’ 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).   Chambers’ 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 -