UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6815

TERRANCE L. JAMES-BEY, Sovereign,

Petitioner Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA
CORRECTIONS; UNITED STATES CORPORATION,

DEPARTMENT

OF

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cv-00136-RJC)

Submitted:

August 16, 2012

Decided:

August 21, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrance Lamount James, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Terrance

James-Bey

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

courts orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006)

petition and denying a certificate of appealability.

He also

seeks to appeal the district courts order treating his Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006)
petition, and dismissing it on that basis.
appealable

unless

certificate

of

(2006).

circuit

justice

appealability.

See

28

The orders are not

or

judge

U.S.C.

issues

2253(c)(1)(A)

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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

courts

debatable

or

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 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 petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
at 484-85.

Slack, 529 U.S.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that James-Bey has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe James-Beys informal brief
as

an

application

petition.
Cir.

to

file

second

or

successive

2254

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th

2003).

In

order

to

obtain

authorization

to

file

successive 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based

on

either:

(1)

new

rule

of

constitutional

law,

previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral

review;

or

previously

discoverable

(2)

newly

by

due

discovered
diligence,

evidence,
that

not

would

be

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that,

but

for

constitutional

error,

no

reasonable

factfinder

have found the petitioner guilty of the offense.

2244(b)(2) (2006).
of these criteria.
successive

2254

would

28 U.S.C.

James-Beys claims do not satisfy either

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a

petition.

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