reviewed the record and conclude that Mohammed has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Mohammed’s motion for 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED. * To the extent Mohammed’s motion is construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, that claim fails, as Mohammed has failed to allege: (1) newly-discovered evidence or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir.2005)
holding booker is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review holding that booker does not apply retroactively to collateral proceedings under  2255 holding that the apprendi decision is not applicable on collateral review holding that the rule announced by booker  does not operate retroactively holding that batson v kentucky does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review