ord and

conclude    that     Smith   has     not   made      the     requisite        showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

            We also construe Smith’s notice of appeal and informal

brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).       See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).         In order to obtain authorization to file


                                      - 2 -
a 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 sufficient to

establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found petitioner

guilty of the offense.     28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 8.      Smith’s claims do

not satisfy either of these standards.       We therefore decline to

authorize a successive § 2255 motion.          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




                                 - 3 -


Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 22, 2014.




                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-13-00901-CV

                        BARBARA ULMER, Appellant
                                       V.
                DEREK ANTHONY JENKINS, SR., Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 309th District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. 2012-44247

              MEMORANDUM                        OPINION
      This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce signed July 26, 2013. On
May 16, 2014, appellant filed a motio