UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6279

SHERMAN ELWOOD SKIPPER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JENNIFER H. LANGLEY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (5:05-hc-00749-H)

Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 19, 2006

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherman Elwood Skipper, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Sherman Elwood Skipper seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his 28U.S.C. § 2254 petition as successive The district court also denied and dismissing it on that basis.

Skipper's motion for reconsideration and his request for a certificate of appealability. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28U.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, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Skipper has not made the requisite showing.* * Construing Skipper's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive petition under 28U.S.C. § 2254, that application fails. In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, 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 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000). Skipper's claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.