UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 08-6084



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


RONALD LEE COUCH, JR., a/k/a D, a/k/a Diablo,

                  Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:98-cr-00099-HCM-1; 2:02-cv-00905-HCM-FBS)


Submitted:     April 17, 2008                 Decided: April 23, 2008


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ronald Lee Couch, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Ronald Lee Couch, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s   order   denying   his   Fed.    R.   Civ.   P.   60(b)   motion   for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.      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 Couch has not

made the requisite showing.       Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

           Additionally, we construe Couch’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).     Couch’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 -