
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred CALDWELL, a/k/a Big Al, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-6198.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 23, 2004.
    Decided: Aug. 5, 2004.
    Douglas Fredericks, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant.
    Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Alfred Caldwell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive, and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for lack of jurisdiction. This court may grant a certificate of appealability only if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). Where, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Caldwell has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).

We construe Caldwell’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, a movant 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 that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (2000). Caldwell’s claims do not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Caldwell to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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  