
    Bobby HAZEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-6304.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 22, 2008.
    Decided: May 30, 2008.
    Bobby Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Aexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Afirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Bobby Hazel seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for recusal, treating his motion for relief from judgment as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. Insofar as Hazel appeals the order denying recusal, we affirm in part for the reasons cited by the district court. See United States v. Hazel, No. 1:97-cv-0633-AVB (E.D.Va., Jan. 10, 2008). With respect to that part of the order denying relief from prior orders, the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 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, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Hazel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part.

Additionally, we construe Hazel’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, 340 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). Hazel’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss in part. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.  