                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 05-7265



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


GREGORY MCGAIL GARDNER,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CR-99-443; CA-05-619-1)


Submitted: January 19, 2006                 Decided:   January 25, 2006


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gregory McGail Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Joseph Rossi,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

              Gregory McGail Gardner, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying his motion under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as both time-barred and without merit.                    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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong.      See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Gardner 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 -
