UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 11-6713


RAYMOND JEROME FRANCIS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

MARK T. CALLOWAY;    DEBORAH    A.   AUSBURN;   WILLIAM   M.   BOYUM;
BRIAN L. WHISLER,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00004-MR)


Submitted:   February 9, 2012             Decided:   February 13, 2012


Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Raymond Jerome Francis, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Raymond Jerome Francis seeks to appeal the district

court’s order treating his self-styled Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3)

motion as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and dismissing it as a

successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion, and the

district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration.

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues      a      certificate        of       appealability.          28      U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).          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) (2006).              When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this    standard     by    demonstrating       that   reasonable     jurists    would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.              Slack v. McDaniel, 

,

484    (2000);     see    Miller-El   v.   Cockrell,     

,    336-38

(2003).     When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                       

.           We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Francis has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.

                                           2
            Additionally,           we     construe     Francis’        notice        of   appeal

and   informal      brief      as     an    application         to   file       a     second    or

successive § 2255 motion.                  United States v. Winestock, 

, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).                  In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims

based on either:          (1) 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;      or     (2)      a    new     rule    of

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by

the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review.                                     28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2011).                   Francis’ 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