                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7543



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


GARY ROBINSON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CR-02-253-WMN; CA-05-133-WMN)


Submitted:   May 3, 2006                    Decided:   May 15, 2006


Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gary Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.  Jonathan Mark Mastrangelo,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Gary Robinson 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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable.      See 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 Robinson 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 -
