                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 05-7601



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


CLEAMON ANDERSON,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CR-94-163; CA-05-278-2)


Submitted: February 23, 2006                    Decided: March 3, 2006


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Cleamon Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Cleamon Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) and his motion for reconsideration.        An appeal may not be

taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

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

Anderson has not made the requisite showing.          Accordingly, we deny

Anderson’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 before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                 DISMISSED




                                 - 2 -
