
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alphonso DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-6942.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 29, 2005.
    Decided Oct. 11, 2005.
    
      Alphonso Davis, Appellant pro se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Alphonso Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his motion titled “Motion to Reopen Title U.S.C. § 2255” as an unauthorized successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The district court correctly found that no provision exists that allows for the “reopening” of § 2255 motions that have been addressed on the merits by the district court, and that the district court had no jurisdiction to consider a successive § 2255 motion.

In accordance with United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003), we consider Davis’ notice of appeal and informal brief as a motion for authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a successive § 2255 motion. To obtain permission to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion, a movant must show that his claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or (2) relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). We conclude that Davis has not satisfied either standard.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Davis’ implicit application for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, 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 
      
       Because this was not Davis’ first § 2255 motion, the district court was not required to notify Davis prior to construing the motion as a successive § 2255 motion, and we accordingly reject Davis’ challenge to the district court's action in this regard. See United States v. Emmanuel, 288 F.3d 644, 650 (4th Cir.2002).
     