                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6774



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JOSHUA RICARDO WILLIAMS,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (5:03-cr-30113-GEC; 7:05-cv-00490-GEC)


Submitted: December 21, 2006              Decided: December 29, 2006


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Joshua Ricardo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED    STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Joshua Ricardo Williams seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.        28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000).   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) (2000).   A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating   that   reasonable   jurists   would   find   that   any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.     Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).     We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has

not made the requisite showing. 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




                               - 2 -
